JAMES ROUSH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
James Roush appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of barbiturates, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his automobile. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the search was lawful and reasonable.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. The search was reasonable and lawful because Roush himself invited the police search by informing them of hidden money in his car, and the police had a legitimate purpose in searching to protect both the city and the arrested party from possible loss of the money.
“When the appellant informed the police officer that his automobile, which was to be impounded, contained $1,200 in cash, it was a normal and prudent action on the part of the police to search the automobile in order to protect the city as well as the arrested party from the effect, of possible loss of the money”
Establishes the rationale for why the search was reasonable—it was prompted by Roush's own statements about hidden money
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoush was observed speeding and driving erratically by a Miami Beach police officer and was arrested for reckless driving and driving under the influe…
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 Reckless Driving cases and more on FLexlaw
On a trial without a jury, in the criminal court of record of Dade County, the appellant was convicted and adjudged guilty of unlawful possession of barbituates and was placed on probation.
The question presented on his appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence which it was contended was the fruit of an unlawful search. We hold that in so ruling the trial court was not in error.
The appellant was observed by a Miami Beach policeman to be speeding and driving in an erratic manner. He was pursued or followed by the policeman for some blocks to a location where he parked. When he got out of his automobile at the request of the police officer he was observed by the latter to appear to be under the influence of liquor, and was arrested for reckless driving and driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
Upon his arrest the appellant informed the police there was $1,200 in cash in his ■ automobile, that he was not going to tell them where it was, stating that it was now the concern of the police and that they “could find it if they wanted to,” but at the same time boasting that they would not be able to find the money.
A search of the automobile by the police failed to disclose money which the appellant had said was hidden therein, but a brief case was found in the trunk of the car. The brief case was taken by the arresting officer to the police station, where it was opened and found to contain the phenobarbital which later became the disputed evidence in this case.
When the appellant informed the police officer that his automobile, which was to be impounded, contained $1,200 in cash, it was a normal and prudent action on the part of the police to search the automobile in order to protect the city as well as the arrested party from the effect, of possible loss of the money, if in fact it was in his automobile. Discovery of the barbituates was the result of their search for the money, which the state contends, and we *634agree, was invited, impliedly if not expressly, by the statements made by the appellant when arrested. See Jackson v. State, Fla.1961, 132 So.2d 596; Yant v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 908; Bretti v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 6.
On the facts of this case we conclude, as did the able trial judge, that the search was not unreasonable.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Felda Douglas Godbee v. State, 224 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…the verdict. The judgment appealed from should be, and it is, affirmed. LILES, C. J., and MANN, J., concur. . The “inventory” concept was touched upon in Gagnon v. State (Fla.App.3d 1968), 212 So. 2d 337, and in Roush v. State (Fla.App.3d 1967), 203 So. 2d 632, but the decisions in those cases rested on other grounds. Compare also our decision in Miller v. State (1962), 137 So. 2d 21, which is initially distinguishable from the instant case in that there was no lawful arrest in that case. . See, also, th…
-
Fredric Winton Altman v. State, 335 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…. 2d 501; State v. Galloway, Fla.App.3d, 1972, 266 So. 2d 53; State v. Ruggles, Fla.App.3d, 1971, 245 So. 2d 692; Knight v. State, Fla.App.3d, 1968, 212 So. 2d 900; Gagnon v. State, Fla.App.3d, 1968, 212 So. 2d 337; Roush v. State, Fla.App.3d, 1967, 203 So. 2d 632; Jackson v. State, Fla.App.3d, 1966, 192 So. 2d 78. Cf. Mattson v. State, Fla.App.1st, 1976, 328 So. 2d 246, in which the court found the car was lawfully impounded but then upheld a subsequent search on grounds of probable cause rather than on an i…
-
State v. Pacitti, 383 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…stent with statements of the victim about defendant’s use of a gun, and the immediate retrieval of the gun from the automobile was not improper. Indeed, we believe the defendant’s conduct invited seizure of the gun. Of application is Roush v. State, 203 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), where the defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicants and upon his arrest informed the police that there was $1200 in cash in his automobile. The police searched the ear without a warrant and found certa…
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. State, 132 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1961)
- Bretti v. State, 192 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Yant v. State, 154 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)