STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVEN KLEIN, 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 affirmed the suppression order because the state failed to preserve its argument for appeal by not raising it in the trial court.
[1] A search incident to arrest may extend to the passenger compartment of a vehicle in which the arrestee was a passenger.
[2] An appellate court will not consider an argument that was not raised in the trial court.
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 intelligenceA driver was stopped for speeding and passed sobriety tests, but his passenger had an outstanding warrant. After the passenger's arrest, drugs were fo…
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 Founded Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The state appeals an order granting a motion to suppress drugs found in an automobile. We affirm.
The appellee was pulled over for speeding, given field sobriety tests which he passed, and was not issued a citation. It was discovered, though, that his passenger had an outstanding warrant for arrest. After there was no longer any reason to detain the appellee driver, the passenger was arrested, and the officer found little plastic bags, usually used to carry drugs, in the passenger’s pockets. He then searched the car, but found nothing. The officer then called for a drug dog, and ultimately drugs were found in the passenger section of the car. The appellee driver moved to suppress on the ground that the officer did not have founded suspicion to detain him longer than the time it took to issue a citation. The trial court granted the motion to suppress because once the appellee passed the sobriety tests, there was no longer any reason why he and his car should have been detained.
The state argued in the trial court only that there was founded suspicion to detain appellee until the car was searched. The trial court correctly rejected that argument. B.T. v. State, 702 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and cases cited therein. On appeal the state argues for the first time that the search of the passenger part of the vehicle, in which drugs were found, was within the scope of a search incident to the arrest of the passenger and was, therefore, lawful. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981). We do not reach the merits of this argument because it was not raised below.
Under section 924.051, Florida Statutes (1997), a criminal appeal may not be taken unless an error has been properly preserved or is fundamental. “Preserved” means that the legal argument presented to the trial court was “sufficiently precise” to fairly apprise the trial court of the argument being made on appeal. § 924.051(l)(b). This error was not preserved. Nor was it fundamental error. We must therefore affirm.
STONE, C.J., and GUNTHER, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tristan Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2007)…resent an unsafe condition that endangers persons or property. But that possibility is merely academic in this case, because in the proceedings below the State did not assert safety concerns as a justification for stopping Hilton See State v. Klein, 736 So. 2d 9, 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that state could not assert new theory to justify traffic stop for first time on appeal) [n.5]. Indeed, the officers did not testify that they stopped Hilton because they believed the crack in his windshield rendered…
-
Tristan Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…esent an unsafe condition that endangers persons or property. But that possibility is merely academic in this case, because in the proceedings below the State did not assert safety concerns as a justification for stopping Hilton. See State v. Klein, 736 So. 2d 9, 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that state could not assert new theory to justify traffic stop for first time on appeal).5 Indeed, the officers did not testify that they stopped Hilton because they believed the crack in his windshield rendered his…
-
State v. Taylor, 826 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…l argument, or objection ... was sufficiently precise that it fairly apprized the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefore.” An argument against suppression may not be presented for the first time on appeal. Cornuz; State v. Klein, 736 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); State v. Mae, 706 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The state argues that preservation should not be an issue, because the testimony demonstrates that the items were obviously in plain view. The state cites to page 66 of the recor…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981)
- B.T. v. State, 702 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)