THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CARLOS ENDO AND RAUL HENAO, APPELLEES
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.
A general consent to search a vehicle does not extend to opening closed containers within the vehicle without specific consent.
Police obtained consent to search a car, and during the search, opened a closed, zippered purse found under a seat without obtaining further consent. …
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 Closed Containers cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals an order granting the motion of defendants Raul Henao and Carlos Endo to suppress evidence. We affirm.
Henao and Endo were occupants of a car which was stopped by the police. Henao had placed a small zippered purse under his seat. The police officers obtained verbal consent of Henao and Endo to search the car. The trial court found that when one of the police officers discovered the closed, zippered purse under the seat, he opened the purse without seeking a further consent. Relying on, inter alia, State v. Wells, 539 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1989), aff'd, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990), the trial court ruled that the previously given consent could not be construed as extending to the opening of the zippered purse. Since no consent was sought prior to the opening of the purse, the trial court ruled that the search was unreasonable and ordered that the contraband contained within the purse be suppressed.
The Florida Supreme Court recently held in substantially identical circumstances that a general consent to the search of a motor vehicle did not permit the opening of a closed container, in that case a rolled up paper bag. State v. Jimeno, 564 So. 2d 1083 (Fla.1990), aff'g, 550 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).* As Jimeno holds that consent must be specifically obtained to look inside closed but unsealed containers, and since the trial court found that such consent was not obtained in the present case, the order under review is affirmed,
*
Jimeno has overruled sub silentio Rada v. State, 544 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (consent to search of vehicle included opening of closed plastic bag).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990)
- State v. Wells, 539 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Jimeno, 550 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- State v. Jimeno, 564 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1990)
- Rada v. State, 544 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)