STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD HITE, 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 the suppression of marijuana plants discovered in the defendant's closet when a deputy shined a flashlight during a consensual bedroom search. The court reversed, holding that the plain view doctrine applies and the flashlight merely enhanced the officer's natural vision without constituting an illegal search.
The marijuana plants were lawfully seized under the plain view doctrine. Because the officer was in the bedroom with the defendant's consent, he was entitled to see any visible contraband, and using a flashlight to illuminate the partially-open closet constituted plain view enhancement rather than an illegal search.
[1] Contraband in plain view is subject to seizure when a law enforcement officer is lawfully present in a location with the consent of the defendant.
[2] The use of a flashlight to illuminate an area does not constitute a search when the officer is lawfully present and the contraband is in plain view.
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“Because the officer was in the room with the consent of the defendant, any contraband within plain view was subject to a seizure.”
Establishes the core holding that plain view doctrine applies when officer is lawfully present with consent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputies responded to a report of gunshots at the defendant's residence. The defendant consented to the deputy entering the home and invited inspectio…
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 Consent To Enter cases and more on FLexlaw
[*56] FULMER, Judge.
We reverse an order suppressing marijuana plants which were discovered when a law enforcement officer shined a flashlight toward the defendant’s partially-open closet door. Because the officer was in the room with the consent of the defendant, any contraband within plain view was subject to a seizure.
At approximately 10:00 p.m. on March 6, 1993, several deputies responded to a report of gunshots being fired in the backyard of the defendant’s house. When Deputy James Previtera asked whether he could enter the house to make sure that no one inside needed assistance, the defendant consented. After entering, Deputy Previtera saw a rifle by the front door and asked if there were any other guns in the house. The defendant responded that he had a gun collection in his bedroom and invited the deputy to inspect those guns to confirm that they had not been fired. While in the defendant’s bedroom, Deputy Previtera used his flashlight to inspect the guns because the room was dark and the defendant had told him that the light was not working. When the deputy began to leave the room, he pointed his flashlight toward the closet. Because the closet door was partially open, he and another deputy saw the marijuana plants inside the closet.
The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the marijuana plants, concluding that the search of the closet with the flashlight was illegal because the defendant had allowed the deputy into the bedroom only to confirm that his guns had not been fired. The court found that the deputy intentionally shined his flashlight into the closet, exceeding the scope of the search to which the defendant had consented.
The issue of whether or not Deputy Previtera intentionally directed his flashlight at the partially open closet door without permission is irrelevant to whether the search was legal. The deputy was in the bedroom with the consent of the defendant. Once there, he was not obliged to shield his eyes from any objects other than those he entered to inspect. When an officer is in a place where he has the right to be, any visible contraband is considered to be in plain view. Further, the use of the flashlight to illuminate the partially open closet area does not constitute a search or violate any constitutional principles. The flashlight, merely enhanced the officer’s plain view. See McVay v. State, 553 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (marijuana on shelf considered in plain view when seen by officer shining flashlight into bedroom closet); State v. Elbertson, 340 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (marijuana plants in plain view of officers shining flashlight through wooden fence at night); see also Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (shining flashlight into automobile not an illegal search).
The order suppressing the evidence is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Putnel v. State, 746 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…2d DCA 1998); Parker v. State, 693 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Jimenez v. State, 643 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). However, because the officer saw the boat before Appellant withdrew his consent, the boat was admis [*524] sible. See State v. Hite, 642 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The boat would have been admissible in any event under the inevitable discovery rule, which provides that if the item would ultimately have been discovered by legal means, it is admissible. See Maulden v. State, 617 So. 2d 298 (F…
Authorities Cited
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1983)
- State v. Elbertson, 340 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- McVAY v. State, 553 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)