STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
YVETTE SYMONE DEXTER, 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.
Florida appeals an order suppressing evidence of stolen credit cards and unlicensed driver's licenses found during a search of the defendant's vehicle. The court reverses, holding that a hatchback section accessible from inside the car is part of the passenger compartment and therefore subject to search incident to a lawful arrest.
A hatchback which can be reached from inside the car is part of the passenger compartment and is therefore subject to search incident to arrest. The trial court's order suppressing the evidence is reversed because the officer had authority to search the passenger compartment following the lawful arrest.
[1] A lawful arrest of an automobile occupant authorizes a search of the entire passenger compartment and its containers.
[2] A hatchback section of a car is considered part of the passenger compartment if it is accessible from the inside of the vehicle.
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“A police officer who has made a lawful arrest of an occupant of an automobile may search the entire passenger compartment of the car and examine the contents of the containers therein.”
Establishes the legal standard for searches incident to arrest in vehicles, citing Belton and state precedent.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSergeant Burch stopped Yvette Symone Dexter and discovered she did not have her driver's license with her. A computer check revealed her license was s…
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
PATTERSON, Judge.
The state appeals an order granting a motion to suppress and contends that the evidence was found pursuant to a legal stop and search incident to arrest. We agree and reverse.
The state charged the appellee with possession of stolen credit cards and the unauthorized possession of driver’s licenses. The appellee filed a motion to suppress all evidence reflecting the existence or possession of stolen credit cards or unlawfully-issued operator’s licenses on the grounds that the stop of her vehicle was pretextual and that the search of her vehicle was improper. Sergeant Burch testified that upon stopping the appellee, he learned she did not have a driver’s license with her. Burch entered her name in the computer and discovered that her license was suspended. He arrested her for driving with a suspended license, searched the car, and found the contested evidence. A police officer who has made a lawful arrest of an occupant of an automobile may search the entire passenger compartment of the car and examine the contents of the containers therein. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); State v. Ciucio, 548 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
The trial court in this case found that the stop of the appellant was lawful and the stop is not contested on appeal. The appellant’s arrest was also lawful since she was driving with a suspended license.
Therefore, the officer was entitled to search the inside of the car and all containers in the passenger compartment.
The central issue in this case is whether the hatchback section of the car is part of the passenger compartment. See United States v. Russell, 670 F. 2d 323 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1108, 102 S.Ct. 2909, 73 L.Ed.2d 1317 (1982). The record contains conflicting testimony as to whether the trunk space is accessible from the inside of the car. The officer testified that he could have looked in the back section of the car from the inside, but since he did not want to damage the upholstery, he opened the hatchback from the back of the car. The appellant, on the other hand, claims that the trunk space is not accessible from the inside because the latch which releases the seats is in the trunk space.
We favor following the holding in Russell that a hatchback which can be reached from inside the car is part of the passenger compartment and, thus, subject to search. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Pugh, 635 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ne of the initial stop further supports the decision to arrest him. Once Mr. Pugh was lawfully arrested, the officers had authority to search the car. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981). See also State v. Dexter, 596 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (arrest for suspended driver’s license permits search of vehicle). Reversed and remanded. SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981)
- Douglas v. United States, 457 U.S. 1108 (U.S. 1982)
- United States v. Russell, 670 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1982)
- Perkins v. State, 548 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)