THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BARRETT SCOTT AND LURLENE SCOTT, 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.
The State appeals a trial court order suppressing cocaine found in the trunk of a rental car. The appellate court reversed, holding that officers had lawful authority to search the trunk based on probable cause arising from marijuana discovered in the passenger compartment following a lawful arrest of the driver for driving under the influence.
The court held that the search of the trunk was valid because: (1) officers were entitled to search the passenger compartment as a search incident to the lawful arrest of the driver; (2) once marijuana was discovered in the passenger compartment, officers had probable cause to search the entire vehicle including the trunk; and (3) the issue of consent was therefore superfluous.
[1] A search incident to a lawful arrest of a driver permits a search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle.
[2] Discovery of contraband in the passenger compartment of a vehicle provides probable cause to search the entire vehicle, including the trunk.
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 intelligence“Once the driver of the car had been arrested for driving under the influence, the officers were entitled to search the passenger compartment as a contemporaneous search incident to the lawful arrest of the driver.”
Establishes the basis for the initial search of the passenger compartment under arrest doctrine
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Pelton stopped a vehicle after observing it weaving between lanes. The driver exhibited signs of intoxication and failed a sobriety test; he w…
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 Appeal From Order Suppressing Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
LEVY, Judge.
The State appeals from a trial court order suppressing cocaine seized from the trunk of an automobile.
The vehicle was stopped by Officer Pel-ton after he observed the car on the highway weaving from side to side in and out of the lanes. There were four adults and one child in the car. Defendant/appellee Barrett Scott and the driver were in the front seat of the car. Defendant/appellee Lurlene Scott was in the back seat with the child and another passenger, Paul Carter. The driver did not have a driver’s license with him, and the car was a rental car which had been rented in defendant/appel-lee Lurlene Scott’s name.
Officer Pelton noticed that the driver had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and that his breath smelled like alcohol, and there was white powder around his nose. The officer had the driver take a roadside sobriety test, which the driver failed. Officer Pelton then ascertained that the license of the driver was suspended, and arrested the driver for driving under the influence and for driving while his license was suspended.
During this time, Officer Durden arrived on the scene. He observed Carter, the passenger in the right rear seat, attempt ing to stuff something under the seat. Officer Durden noticed that the right rear seat was partially pulled out approximately three to four inches. The officers asked the remaining occupants in the car, including the appellees, to get out of the car and produce identification.
Officer Durden then searched the car with his police dog. The dog alerted to the right rear seat, where a bag of marijuana was found, and to the front seat where a marijuana cigarette butt was found. Officer Pelton then asked the occupants of the car for permission to search the trunk. According to Officer Pelton, the appellees verbally gave consent to search the trunk.
The officer could not open the trunk at this time, however, because the key did not fit. He proceeded to search the occupants of the car, and found a vial of cocaine in the possession of passenger Carter. Thereafter, Officer Durden found the trunk release button and opened the trunk. In the trunk, he found a closed plastic bag which contained laundry and a bag of cocaine. The appellees were then advised of their rights and waived them. The appel-lees admitted that they owned the plastic bags, but denied any knowledge of the cocaine contained therein.
At trial, the appellees argued that the consent was invalid and moved to suppress the cocaine. The trial court granted the motion stating: “[T]he court feels that the search here, that the consent is questionable; that the search was not valid as to these two defendants of that bag.”
We find that the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress. Once the driver of the car had been arrested for driving under the influence, the officers were entitled to search the passenger compartment as a contemporaneous search incident to the lawful arrest of the driver. See New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); State v. Smith, 529 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Once the marijuana was discovered in the passenger compartment, the officers had probable cause to then conduct a search of the entire car, including the trunk. See Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259, 102 S.Ct. 3079, 73 L.Ed.2d 750 (1982); U.S. v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982); U.S. v. Burns, 684 F. 2d 1066 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1174, 103 S.Ct. 823, 74 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983); and Article I, Section 12 of the Constitution of the State of Florida.
Given the existence of probable cause to search the trunk, the issue of consent is superfluous. Moreover, the fact that the officers might have subjectively believed that they were searching the car based upon valid consent does not affect the validity of the search. See State v. Valdes, 423 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). “[T]he lawfulness of a warrantless search is to be determined by an objective view of the facts, not the subjective view of the person conducting the search.” State v. Blanco, 513 So. 2d 739, 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Accordingly, we reverse the order of suppression and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leary v. State, 880 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…States v. Blaze, 143 F. 3d 585, 591 n. 8 (10th Cir.1998); United States v. Wright, 932 F. 2d 868 (10th Cir.1991). . See United States v. Myers, 102 F. 3d 227 (6th Cir.1996); United States v. Riedesel, 987 F. 2d 1383 (8th Cir.1993); State v. Scott, 576 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). . In this case, Glover testified that the check out time was 11:00 a.m. and that she and Leary were getting ready to check out (T. 31). The arrest report shows that Leary was arrested at 7:12 a.m. (R. 55). .§ 810.08(2), Fla. St…
-
Markilo Brown v. State, 863 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…eat area of the vehicle and found cannabis seeds, leaves, and residue. Once the officers discovered the cannabis in the front of the vehicle, they had probable cause to conduct a search of the entire vehicle, including the trunk. See State v. Scott, 576 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding that upon finding marijuana in the passenger compartment, they had probable cause to search laundry bag in trunk). AFFIRMED. PETERSON and TORPY, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. DeANGELIS, 578 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…3d DCA 1987). The fact that the officers might have subjectively believed they were searching the BMW based on a particular exception to the requirement of a search warrant did not affect a search justified on another exception. See State v. Scott, 576 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).…
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
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981)
- Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1982)
- United States v. Burns, 684 F.2d 1066 (2d Cir. 1982)
- Granger v. Maggio, 459 U.S. 1174 (U.S. 1983)
- State v. Valdes, 423 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- LeRoy v. United States, 459 U.S. 1174 (U.S. 1983)
- Gerner v. Gerner, 529 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- State v. Smith, 529 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- State v. Blanco, 513 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)