SCOTT THOMAS ROBERTS, 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.
Scott Thomas Roberts appealed his conviction for cocaine and drug paraphernalia possession, challenging the admissibility of evidence observed by police officers in a parking lot. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the officers' observations did not violate Fourth Amendment protections because the cocaine was in plain view and Roberts had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the parked vehicle.
The court held that the officers' actions did not rise to the level of an investigatory detention prior to the viewing of the cocaine, the cocaine was observed in plain view before any arrest or seizure, and the use of a flashlight to illuminate the vehicle's interior does not violate Fourth Amendment rights. Roberts had no legitimate expectation of privacy in a parked automobile in a publicly accessible parking lot regarding illegal activities.
[1] A defendant's notice of appeal may be construed to seek review of a final judgment and sentence, even if it erroneously designates a nonappealable prejudgment order denyi…
[2] Police officers may initiate brief, non-seizure encounters with citizens without creating an investigatory detention.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Police officers can initiate brief encounters with a citizen without creating a stop.”
Establishes the legal principle that distinguishes between consensual encounters and investigatory detentions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 19, 1989, two plainclothes officers patrolling a motel parking lot in an unmarked car approached Roberts's vehicle, which had windows down an…
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 Possession Of Drug Paraphernalia cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Scott Thomas Roberts appeals from an order denying his motion to suppress certain physical evidence after his plea of no contest to possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Although in his notice of appeal the defendant seeks to appeal from a nonappealable prejudgment order denying a motion to suppress, it is clear from the record that appellant is seeking review of the final judgment and sentence resulting from his no contest plea.1 Upon examination of the record on appeal and the supplemental transcript, however, we find the record insufficient to warrant a reversal of the trial court.
On April 19, 1989, two plainclothes police officers were patrolling motel parking lots in an unmarked car to check for vehicle burglaries. The officers observed appellant’s automobile parked with the windows down and the T-tops removed. Two people were in the front seat bent over, and two people were in the back seat. One of the officers approached the driver to obtain identification. The second officer approached the passenger side of the car and shined his flashlight inside. He observed a mirror with white powder on the floorboard of the passenger side beneath appellant’s feet. The officer requested that the appellant hand him the mirror. The residue of the powder tested positive for cocaine.
Police officers can initiate brief encounters with a citizen without creating a stop. Lightbourne v. State, 438 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1330, 79 L.Ed.2d 725 (1984); State v. Smith, 477 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Here the officers approached a parked car in a parking lot available to the public. We do not find that the actions of the police officers in this case rose to the level of an investigatory detention prior to the viewing of the cocaine. The officer observed the cocaine in plain view before any arrest or seizure occurred.
It is well established that the use of a flashlight to illuminate the interior of a vehicle does not violate Fourth Amendment rights, even though an officer may specifically be looking at an area of suspicious activity. State v. Billingsly, 542 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); State v. Ecker, 550 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1989). The appellant had no legitimate expectation of privacy while in a parked automobile in a parking lot to which the public had access, as to illegal activities which would have been as visible to a private security guard or a police officer as to a private citizen. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983).
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur. . Rule 9.140(b), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. This court has previously declined to dismiss an appeal in which the defendant erroneously designated an order denying a motion to suppress in his notice of appeal, rather than the underlying judgment, where it was clear that the defendant sought review of the final judgment resulting from his nolo contendere plea and where he reserved for appellate review the legal issues raised by the denial of his previous motion to suppress. Jones v. State, 423 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). In the absence of prejudice to the appellee, we therefore decline to dismiss the instant appeal based on an erroneous notice.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Futch, 715 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…uired to establish that it was immediately apparent. We conclude that the incriminating nature of [*994] the methamphetamine was immediately apparent upon the officer’s observation of the white, powdery substance on the mirror. See Roberts v. State, 566 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (holding that the trial court properly denied a motion to suppress where police observed a mirror with white powder in plain view). Therefore, the methamphetamine found on the mirror should not have been suppressed. However, the…
-
State v. Green, 943 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…er console, the officer was authorized to enter the car and seize the contraband. Initially, we note that the shining of the flashlight into the vehicle was not a search and thus did not implicate Fourth Amendment protections. See Roberts v. State, 566 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); State v. Billingsly, 542 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (citing Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983)). Once the officer illuminated the inside of the vehicle and saw the razor blade with a white po…
-
Ward v. State, 636 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…that the Defendant had made eye contact with him, and making observation of the Defendant's sexual organ, the officer went to the front area or basin area of the restroom facility and within 1 minute the Defendant left. . Compare Roberts v. State, 566 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). . Caso v. State, 524 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 870, 109 S.Ct. 178, 102 L.Ed.2d 147 (1988). . See State v. Berber, 48 Wash.App. 583, 740 P. 2d 863 (1987); Bielicki v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 57…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1983)
- Lightbourne v. State, 438 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1983)
- Griffin v. Texas, 465 U.S. 1051 (U.S. 1984)
- Kinnett Dairies, Inc. v. Dairymen, Inc., 465 U.S. 1051 (U.S. 1984)
- State v. Earnest Smith and Daniel Oliver, 477 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Jones v. State, 423 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- State v. Ecker, 550 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- State v. Billingsly, 542 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)