STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE LEE CASH, 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.
Florida appeals the suppression of marijuana and a capsule found in a defendant's car during a routine inventory search conducted after his arrest for trespassing. The court holds that the inventory search was lawful and evidence observed in plain view during that search is admissible despite the defendant's motion to suppress.
The court holds that a routine inventory search of an impounded vehicle is lawful when the police have legitimate possession of the vehicle after arrest, and objects falling in the plain view of an officer lawfully positioned to see them are subject to seizure and admissible in evidence.
[1] A routine inventory search of a vehicle is permissible when police are lawfully in possession of the vehicle after the owner's arrest and are responsible for its protecti…
[2] Objects observed in plain view by an officer who is lawfully in a position to see them are subject to seizure and admissible as evidence.
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 police officers are lawfully in possession of a vehicle after its owner has been placed under arrest and are responsible for protecting it, it is reasonable to conduct a search for the purpose of making an inventory of the contents of the vehicle.”
Establishes the legal standard for inventory searches of impounded vehicles.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 17, 1972, the defendant was arrested for trespassing at a motel. As he was being taken to the police car, the motel owner requested the arrest…
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 Fourth Amendment (Search And Seizure) cases and more on FLexlaw
By this interlocutory appeal, the State seeks reversal of the lower court’s order granting the defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence found in his automobile.
The only facts pertinent to a disposition of the issue of whether said evidence was inadmissible because it was the fruit of an unlawful search and in violation of defendant’s constitutional rights are as herein set out. On June 17, 1972, defendant was arrested for trespassing at the Town and Surf Motel in Daytona Beach. As he was being walked to the police car to be taken to the police station, the motel owner advised the arresting officer that the defendant had a car on the motel premises and asked that it be removed. The arresting officer then called a wrecker to have the car towed to the police compound while the defendant was in jail. Before the wrecker arrived, the arresting officer went to the car to make a “routine inventory to make sure there is nothing that can be claimed of value that might have possibly been taken from the car while impounded.” This was normal police procedure when dealing with impounded vehicles. After placing the defendant’s keys in the ignition, the arresting officer observed a cellophane bag containing a substance which appeared to be marijuana. *606This bag was lying in the open console between the bucket seats and it was in plain view. When the front seat was pushed forward so that the back seat could be inventoried, an orange capsule came into plain view. These two items — the bag containing cannabis and the orange capsule. — • were the subject of the order granting defendant’s motion to suppress.
The State contends that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence found in defendant’s car for the reason that the arresting officer had a lawful right to be in the position from which he viewed the evidence inasmuch as he was conducting a routine inventory search of the vehicle before impounding it. Once lawfully inside the defendant’s vehicle, what is observed in plain view cannot be objected to, for to observe what is in plain sight is not a search. Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968); State v. Parnell, 221 So.2d 129 (Fla.1969).
We agree with the State’s contention herein and are required to reverse the order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence found in the automobile. This case involves a routine inventory search conducted after the motel owner’s request to the arresting officer to remove the trespassing defendant’s vehicle from the motel premises. When police officers are lawfully in possession of a vehicle after its owner has been placed under arrest and are responsible for protecting it, it is reasonable to conduct a search for the purpose of making an inventory of the contents of the vehicle. Urquhart v. State, 261 So.2d 535 (Fla.App.2d, 1971). Objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence. Harris v. United States, supra, United States v. Mitchell, 458 F.2d 960 (9th Cir., 1972).
For the reasons hereinabove set forth, the order suppressing evidence is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fredric Winton Altman v. State, 335 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…o grant permission to have his car taken to the police station. On the other hand, numerous cases have upheld the officer’s right to take possession of the vehicle and conduct an inventory search. See, for example, State v. Cash, Fla.App.1st, 1973, 275 So. 2d 605, where the ear was on a motel parking lot and the owner of the lot requested that it be removed.2 A common pattern running through these cases is that the police must act in good faith and not use the inventory procedure as a subterfuge for a warra…
-
Benton v. State, 329 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…doctrine as expressed in Harris v. United States, 390 TJ.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed. 2d 1067 (1968), and State v. Ashby, 245 [*388] So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971), is not applicable to the factual circumstances in the instant case. Also see State v. Cash, 275 So. 2d 605 (Fla. App. 1st 1973), which discusses “plain view” and “inventory” jointly. . Godbee v. State, 224 So. 2d 441 (2 Fla.App. 1969) ; State v. Ruggles, 245 So. 2d 692 (Fla.App. 3rd 1971) ; Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706…
-
Granville v. State, 348 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…rwise have had to be left on the highway, as in Urquhart v. State, 261 So. 2d 535 (Fla.2d DCA 1971). The car was parked in the driveway of a private residence, the owner of which was a friend of appellant, and, unlike the situation in Cash v. State, 275 So. 2d 605 (Fla.1st DCA 1973), the owner of the property on which the vehicle was parked had not requested that it be removed. Cases which held that the vehicle seized was permissibly parked and not subject to impoundment include Weed v. Wainwright, 325 So. 2…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 (U.S. 1968)
- State v. Hiram Cazes Parnell, 221 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1969)
- Urquhart v. State, 261 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- United States v. Mitchell, 458 F.2d 960 (9th Cir. 1972)