DAVID CHRISTIAN AND BRUCE MOREHOUSE, APPELLANTS,
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.
Affirmed convictions for marijuana possession where inventory search at police station lawfully discovered marijuana in defendants' pillow case and defendants admitted ownership after Miranda warnings.
The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence from an inventory search, admitted the defendants' post-Miranda statements, and the evidence sufficiently proved possession of marijuana.
[1] An inventory search conducted at a police station following a lawful arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment when conducted according to established procedures.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were arrested for soliciting a ride on a public roadway and had two backpacks and a pillow case in their possession. An inventory search at…
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
The appellants were charged and convicted of possession of marijuana, for which they were sentenced to confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days, and placed on probation for a year. They were arrested for soliciting a ride on a public roadway. In their possession were two back packs and a pillow case. Inventory search thereof at the police station revealed the marijuana in the pillow case. Both defendants admitted ownership of the contents of the pillow case, including the marijuana.
Appellants contend the trial court erred in denying their motion to suppress such evidence; in admitting their inculpa-tory statements; and that the evidence was insufficient to prove the allegation of their possession of the marijuana. Upon consideration thereof in the light of the record and briefs we hold those contentions are without merit. The motion to suppress was properly denied. State v. Gustafson, Fla.1972, 258 So.2d 1. The defendants’ admission of ownership of the marijuana was made following due information as to their rights, in accordance with the Miranda decision. No objection was made in the trial court, on constitutional grounds, to the admission thereof. The evidence of possession was sufficient.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cave v. State, 360 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…e was correct in denying the motion to suppress. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); State v. Gustafson, 258 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1972), aff’d, 414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456 (1973); Christian v. State, 265 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Dolan v. State, 185 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). We have also considered each of the other points raised by appellant and find them to be without merit. AFFIRMED. DOWNEY, C. J., and MOORE, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Gustafson, 258 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)