MIGUEL MORALES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed Morales's conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching envelopes and interrogating him without Miranda warnings after determining the envelopes posed no safety threat during a traffic stop.
Police did not have the authority to search the envelopes or interrogate Morales without Miranda warnings once they determined the envelopes posed no safety threat. The search and interrogation were improper, and their fruits should have been suppressed.
[1] A police officer's right to conduct a limited search of a vehicle for weapons, based on furtive movements by a passenger, ends once the officer determines that no weapon…
[2] Once a police officer has determined that no weapon is present during a lawful search for safety, the officer may not search containers found in the vehicle.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The police have no automatic right to search a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation. They do, however, have a right to make a limited search for their own safety if they observe furtive movements within the vehicle that may involve hiding a weapon.”
Establishes the limited scope of police search authority during traffic stops based on officer safety.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice stopped Morales's vehicle for speeding. Officers observed a passenger place something under the front seat. Concerned about safety, officers lo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Protective Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
However, we reject appellant’s claim of error in the use of a computer printout in establishing the value of items stolen from the victim’s business. The record reflects that the police stopped and detained the appellant-driver to warn him about speeding, and, in doing so, observed a passenger in appellant’s vehicle place something under the front seat. Concerned about their safety, the police officers looked under the seat and discovered several plain manila envelopes. The officers conceded that the discovery of the envelopes relieved their concerns for their safety.
However, notwithstanding the determination that the envelopes constituted no threat to their safety, the officers searched the envelopes, and, subsequently, questioned the appellant about the gold chains found inside the envelopes and the reason for concealing the envelopes under the seats. Upon further interrogation the appellant admitted that the jewelry was stolen and that there was other contraband in the car. The appellant claims that the police, once having determined that the envelopes constituted no danger to them, had no right to search further; or to interrogate him without advising him of his right to remain silent. The appellant is correct.
The police have no automatic right to search a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation. They do, however, have a right to make a limited search for their own safety if they observe furtive movements within the vehicle that may involve hiding a weapon. This right to search is limited to determining if a weapon is present, and is similar to the protective pat-down search authorized by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See also White v. State, 458 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Thompson v. State, 405 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Under the holdings in these cases the police had a limited right to determine whether a weapon was placed under the seat.
However, once having determined no weapon was involved, the police had no right to search the envelopes, or, having detained appellant, to interrogate him about the attempt to hide the envelopes, without advising him of his right to remain silent. See State v. Hall, 537 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Accordingly, the search and the interrogation were improper, and the fruits thereof should have been suppressed.
ANSTEAD, WALDEN and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sierra v. State, 568 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…the totality of the circumstances. We recognize that the scope of a search under these circumstances is limited [*1340] to determining whether a weapon is present and does not extend to opening containers that pose no risk. E.g., Morales v. State, 557 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); M.A.H. v. State, 559 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Here, however, the examination of the coffee jar, by picking it up and looking at its contents through the glass, did not constitute an invalid search given the testimony of t…
-
Tucker v. State, 622 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…asked the defendant if drugs were involved. The defendant replied affirmatively, and was ordered to hand over the contraband. The First District approved a trial court holding that the defendant was in custody when questioned. In Morales v. State, 557 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), the police stopped the defendant to give him a warning for speeding. In doing so, they saw him place something under the car seat. Based on concerns for their safety, they ordered Morales out of the vehicle and checked under the…
-
Goelet v. State, 670 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…, the instant case does not present a situation wherein a limited protective search is permitted for an officer’s safety based upon furtive movements within a vehicle suggesting that a weapon is being secreted under a seat. Compare Morales v. State, 557 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Hochstetler v. State, 400 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 413 So. 2d 876 (Fla.1982). Accordingly, I find no legal justification for Garcia’s search of Goelet’s automobile. As such, I dissent. . Terry v. Ohio, 392…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Torin D. Thompson v. State, 405 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Gray v. Cranford, 537 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Taylor v. State, 458 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- White v. State, 458 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)