JEFFREY MILTON COX, 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.
Jeffrey Milton Cox appeals his conviction and sentence following a nolo contendere plea, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless vehicle search. The court affirmed, holding that the warrantless search was proper because Cox voluntarily admitted to possessing Dilaudid in his gym bag during a lawful traffic stop incident to executing a valid arrest warrant.
The warrantless search was proper and the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress because Cox's voluntary admission of possessing Dilaudid in his gym bag provided probable cause to search the vehicle, which is lawful under the Fourth Amendment.
[1] A warrantless search of a vehicle is proper when supported by probable cause, such as an admission by the defendant regarding the presence of contraband.
[2] An admission of the presence of contraband in a vehicle provides probable cause for a warrantless search of that 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 warrantless search of a vehicle supported by probable cause is not unreasonable if based on facts that would justify issuance of a warrant”
Establishes the legal standard permitting warrantless vehicle searches when supported by probable cause, citing United States v. Ross
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaw enforcement stopped Cox's truck while executing a valid arrest warrant for 2006 offenses. After reading Cox his Miranda rights, which he acknowled…
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 Schedule Ii Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of a judgment and sentence entered after the appellant pled nolo contendere, while expressly reserving his right to appeal the denial of his disposi-tive motion to suppress items recovered during a warrantless vehicle search. Pursuant to the “tipsy coachman” doctrine, we affirm the convictions and sentences because the evidence supported the trial court’s correct ruling. See Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901, 906-07 (Fla.2002).
In the process of executing a valid arrest warrant for the appellant’s 2006 offenses, law enforcement stopped the appellant’s truck and read his constitutional rights, which the appellant acknowledged understanding. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). When FDLE Special Agent Lawson asked whether he had drugs or anything else in his vehicle that could get him in trouble, the appellant answered that he had Dilaudid in his gym bag. Hydromor-phone, also known as Dilaudid, is a Schedule II controlled substance. § 893.03(2)(a)l.k., Fla. Stat. (2008); Todd v. State, 648 So.2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State v. Gillum, 428 So.2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). A subsequent search of the gym bag disclosed drug paraphernalia and a pill bottle containing Dilaudid, on which the State based new charges. Because the appellant admitted the presence of the drug contraband in the bag inside his truck, the warrantless search was proper and no basis existed to suppress the fruits of the search. See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 809, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982) (holding that a war-rantless search of a vehicle supported by probable cause is not unreasonable if *326based on facts that would justify issuance of a warrant); Minnis v. State, 577 So.2d 973, 975-76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Rivera v. State, 373 So.2d 64, 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (concluding that where defendant was properly stopped for erratic driving, officer had probable cause to search the vehicle after defendant admitted having a pistol next to the driver’s seat); State v. Patterson, 309 So.2d 555, 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (noting that “[ajdmissions of crime ... carry their own indicia of credibility”).
The trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress, accepted the valid plea, and sentenced the appellant for the 2006 crimes as well as the new offenses.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment and sentence.
ROBERTS and RAY, JJ., concur.
BENTON, C.J. Concurs in Judgment.
concurring in the judgment.
The appellant was arrested, while driving an automobile, pursuant to a warrant the validity of which has not been called into question. Even if such a search would now be invalid under Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), we have held that the evidence should not be excluded. See State v. Harris, 58 So.3d 408, 409 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, Harris v. State, 61 So.3d 410 (Fla.2011).
BENTON, C.J.,
concurring in the judgment.
The appellant was arrested, while driving an automobile, pursuant to a warrant the validity of which has not been called into question. Even if such a search would now be invalid under Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), we have held that the evidence should not be excluded. See State v. Harris, 58 So. 3d 408, 409 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, Harris v. State, 61 So. 3d 410 (Fla.2011).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruilova v. State, 125 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…ns issued by a doctor would not necessarily mean that the doctor had actually signed those prescriptions. See, e.g., State v. Bean, 36 So. 3d 116, 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). . See, e.g., James v. State, 936 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Cox v. State, 75 So. 3d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). . See, e.g., Oldham v. State, 113 So. 3d 963 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Fields v. State, 105 So. 3d 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). .See ch. 96-248, Laws of Fla. . See, e.g., White v. State, 661 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Roob v. State,…
Authorities Cited (14 total)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009)
- Swett v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002)
- Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002)
- Curry v. State, 61 So. 3d 410 (Fla. 2011)
- State v. Patterson, 309 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- State v. Harris, 58 So. 3d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- State v. Gillum, 428 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Gilfredo Rivera v. State, 373 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)