MARCELINO PENZLOZA, 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.
Penzloza appeals his convictions for burglary, grand theft, and unlawful use of a driver's license, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his vehicle trunk. The court affirms, holding that police had probable cause to search the vehicle based on observed evidence of crime, and any error was harmless.
The court held that the lower court correctly denied the motion to suppress because police had probable cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence of crime based on the observation of tapes on the floor in light of the attendant circumstances, which authorized a search of the entire vehicle. Additionally, any error in the search was harmless given the lack of specificity in officer testimony, the tangential nature of the evidence, and other evidence of guilt.
[1] A warrantless search of a vehicle is permissible when police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime.
[2] The plain view doctrine allows officers to seize evidence observed in plain view from a lawful vantage point.
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“the police had probable cause to believe that his vehicle contained evidence of a crime and because, even if there were error, it was utterly harmless in light of the lack of specificity in the officers' testimony, the tangential nature of the evidence and the other evidence of guilt”
Establishes the court's dual basis for affirmance: probable cause for the search and harmless error analysis
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice responded to a call from two women who awoke to find the defendant naked and asleep in their bed. Officers found personal items stacked by the …
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 Warrantless Search Of Automobile cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
The defendant appeals, seeking a reversal of his convictions for burglary, grand theft and unlawful use of a driver’s license, claiming the lower court erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of the warrantless examination of his automobile trunk by police. We affirm because the police had probable cause to believe that his vehicle contained evidence of a crime and because, even if there were error, it was utterly harmless in light of the lack of specificity in the officers’ testimony, the tangential nature of the evidence and the other evidence of guilt.
The basic facts are that two young women awoke to find a stranger, the defendant, naked and asleep in bed with them, apparently passed out drunk. They called the police. When the police arrived, they found that the defendant had stacked up by the door several personal items belonging to the two victims, as if in preparation to remove them. They also inspected his clothing in which they found his car registration and the key. Based on the residents’ information that several audio tapes were missing from their apartment, the officers searched for and located his car nearby, looked through the windows into the interior and were able to see several tapes on the floor. They then entered the vehicle and found a box of tapes in the covered hatchback trunk. The residents were unable to identify the tapes on the floor of the car as being their property but were not” asked about the tapes in the trunk. Subsequently, in an investigation involving another criminal matter, a volume of tapes belonging to these victims/residents was found at the appellant’s residence. We conclude that the observation of the tapes on the floor, in light of the attendant circumstances, was sufficient to authorize the search of the entire vehicle and that the lower court correctly denied appellant’s motion. See California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985); United States v. Perry, 925 F. 2d 1077 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 112 S.Ct. 152,116 L.Ed.2d 117 (1991); State v. Starkey, 559 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN, J., concurs.^
DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially in conclusion only, without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.R. v. State, 956 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…ue of the services of the public defender.... ”). The amount of the obligation cannot be based on an arbitrary figure; rather, it must be supported by an adequate factual basis. See Rivers v. State, 677 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Swift v. State, 638 So. 2d 193, 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (“It appears that, in part, the lower court’s cost assessments and public defender’s lien were imposed without following proper procedure or without adequate factual or legal basis shown in the record. Accordingly, we affirm…
Authorities Cited
- California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1985)
- State v. Starkey, 559 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- United States v. Perry, 925 F.2d 1077 (8th Cir. 1991)