STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LISA KAREN LOFTIS, 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 held that the search of the passenger's purse was lawful under the Belton bright-line rule, and suppression of the evidence was improper.
[1] When a police officer makes a lawful custodial arrest of an automobile's occupant, the officer may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger com…
[2] A search incident to a lawful arrest of an automobile occupant may extend to the contents of containers found within the passenger compartment that were within the arrest…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn officer arrested the driver of a car and, pursuant to Belton, searched the passenger compartment, finding cannabis in the passenger's open purse. T…
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 Passenger Compartment Search cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The driver of an automobile was lawfully stopped and arrested. The arresting officer asked Lisa Karen Loftis, a passenger, to leave the car so that he could search the interior of the automobile, pursuant to New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981). The officer discovered cannabis inside an open purse located on the front floorboard on the passenger side. The trial court granted Lof-tis’s motion to suppress the evidence seized.
According to the Supreme Court in Belton, “... when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.” Moreover, the officer may examine the contents of containers found within the passenger compartment which are considered to have been within reach of the arrestee. Belton, 101 S.Ct. at 2864. The Court pointed out that this holding was consistent with the requirement in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), that the object searched be “within the arrestee’s immediate control.” Belton, 101 S.Ct. at 2865. Belton established a bright-line test of what is in an automobile occupant’s immediate control: the entire passenger compartment of the automobile.1 Loftis’s purse was within the driver-arres-tee’s immediate control because it was in the passenger compartment of the automobile. The police officer conducted a legal search of the passenger compartment and Loftis’s purse pursuant to the Belton bright-line test. The evidence found in the purse should not have been suppressed.
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . The Supreme Court has since held that police officers who have legitimately stopped an automobile and have probable cause to believe contraband is concealed somewhere within it may conduct a warrantless search of every part of the vehicle and its contents, including containers and packages that may conceal the object of the search. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Moore, 619 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…liceman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile. Virtually on all fours with the instant case is State v. Loftis, 568 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), in which a search of a purse was found to have been proper. In that ease, the driver of a vehicle was arrested and the passenger was ordered out of the car. The officer then searched the passenger’s purse, which he found on the…
-
Brown v. State, 789 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., concur. . The State relies in part on cases discussing the proper scope of a search incident to arrest or a search based upon probable cause. See, e.g., State v. Moore, 619 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); State v. Loftis, 568 So. 2d 121 [*1023] (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). These cases rest upon the premise that a search incident to arrest includes authority to search all objects within the arrestee's immediate control. When a search is conducted based upon consent, however, the scope of th…
-
Edwards v. State, 692 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See State v. Loftis, 568 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), (citing New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981)). W. SHARP, GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981)