ALOE CREME LABORATORIES, INC.

v.

MILSAN, INC., ET AL.; ALOE CREME LABORATORIES, INC. V. AMERICAN ALOE CORP.; RUEHLMANN, EXECUTOR V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE; CIMINI V. UNITED STATES; MCGEE V. UNITED STATES; HIGGINS V. UNITED STATES; LEWIS V. KROPP, WARDEN; BROWN V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• State v. D.T.W., 425 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
  …the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.” Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 593-596, 94 S.Ct. 2464, 2470-2472, 41 L.Ed.2d 325 (1974); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970), reh. denied, 400 U.S. 856, 91 S.Ct. 23, 27 L.Ed.2d 94. See, further, opinion of the Fourth District, State v. Melendez, 392 So. 2d 587, 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), noting, in footnote 2, the question as to the continued viability of the exigent circumstances requirement as appl…
• Holmes v. State, 549 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
  …use to search the vehicle.” (Ibid.) Further, the state contends, “Because the suspects were driving off, an exigency existed which obviated the need for a search warrant. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419, reh’g. denied 400 U.S. 856, 91 S.Ct. 23, 27 L.Ed.2d 94 (1970). The interior of the vehicle was properly searched pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirements,” citing United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982). The state dis…
• State v. Francoeur, 387 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
  …523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973); United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977). The United States Supreme Court also rejected this argument in Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); reh. den. 400 U.S. 856, 91 S.Ct. 23, 27 L.Ed.2d 94 (1970), stating: Arguably, because of the preference for a magistrate’s judgment, only the immobilization of the car should be permitted until a search warrant is obtained; arguably, only the ‘lesser’ intrusion is permis…