MATTHEW C. CROSS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A warrantless inventory search of a backpack is lawful when substantially complying with the sheriff's department policy and procedures.
[1] An appellate court presumes a trial court's findings of fact are correct when reviewing a motion to suppress ruling and reverses only those findings not supported by comp…
[2] A warrantless search of a backpack may be permissible as a lawful inventory search.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“when reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court presumes the trial court's findings of fact are correct and reverses only those findings not supported by competent substantial evidence”
Standard of review for appellate challenges to trial court's suppression rulings
Cross was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Law enforcement agents searched his backpack and found evidence that led to the c…
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 Inventory Search cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
From a final judgment of conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Appellant alleges an improper warrantless search of his backpack. We affirm the trial court’s determination that the agents conducted a proper inventory search.
“[W]hen reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court presumes the trial court’s findings of fact are correct and reverses only those findings not supported by competent substantial evidence.” Black v. State, 59 So. 3d 340, 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Pierre v. State, 22 So. 3d 759, 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)). We defer to the trial court’s findings, which we conclude are supported by the evidence. The search substantially complied with the sheriff’s policy of procedures as testified to by the agents. That some personal items discovered in the search were returned to appellant’s girlfriend does not vitiate the inventory search, as the agents testified that the return of such property was permitted in their discretion under the sheriff’s department policy.
Affirmed. WARNER, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kimon Black v. State, 59 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Pierre v. State, 22 So. 3d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)