JOHN M. LAVAZZOLI, 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.
Appellant Lavazzoli was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentenced to two years imprisonment. He appealed, challenging the search and seizure of the weapon found in his vehicle and the sufficiency of evidence, but the court affirmed the conviction on alternative grounds.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the search was lawful based on the lawful arrest pursuant to the outstanding bench warrant and that seizure was authorized under the plain view doctrine. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
[1] A search of a vehicle is authorized and lawful when the driver has been taken into custody based on an outstanding warrant.
[2] The plain view rule authorizes the seizure of contraband that is visible in a vehicle.
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“Having taken the driver into custody based on the previously issued and outstanding warrant, the search of the car he was driving was authorized and lawful.”
Establishes that the search was justified by the lawful arrest pursuant to the bench warrant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice stopped Lavazzoli for a traffic violation and discovered an outstanding bench warrant, leading to his arrest. During a search of his vehicle fo…
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 Standing To Suppress Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was found guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and was sentenced thereon to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period of two years. He filed this appeal therefrom.
Upon stopping the appellant for a driving traffic violation, the police learned a bench warrant was outstanding against him, for which he was then arrested. On a search following such arrest, of the automobile which the appellant had been driving, the police found and seized a .357 magnum caliber revolver. The weapon was in the glove compartment type console located between the driver’s seat and the front passenger seat. The top of the compartment was raised and the grip or butt of the gun was protruding therefrom, and thus was exposed to view so that it was observable to the police upon looking into the car.
The appellant moved to suppress the (gun) evidence, contending the search and seizure were unlawful. Denial of the motion by the trial court was on the ground that the defendant was without standing to so move to suppress the evidence because he was on probation. In Echols v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 89, 93-94, it was held that a defendant who was on parole was without standing to suppress contraband found on his person.
In the decision of this case we need not, and do not express an opinion on whether the trial court was correct in holding that because the defendant was on probation he was thereby without standing to move to suppress the evidence. This is so because the denial of the motion to suppress was correct and entitled to be upheld *520on two other grounds. Peerless Ins. Co. v. Sun Line Helicopters, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 364; State v. Alvarez, Fla.App.1972, 258 So.2d 24. Having taken the driver into custody based on the previously issued and outstanding warrant, the search of the car he was driving was authorized and lawful. Chapman v. State, Fla.App.1964, 158 So.2d 578. Also, when the gun was visible in the car, the plain view rule authorized seizure thereof. State v. Clarke, Fla.App.1971, 242 So.2d 791; State v. Gustafson, Fla.1972, 258 So.2d 1; United States v. Drew, 5 Cir.1971, 451 F.2d 230.
A second contention of the appellant was that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the position of the conviction of the appellant for possession. Upon consideration thereof in the light of the record and briefs we hold the contention of insufficiency of the evidence is without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holley Curtis Taylor v. State, 289 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…on the ground that the defendant was in a status of extended custody in which the official of the prison camp was entitled to search him without a warrant. Cf. Echols v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So. 2d 89, 93-94; Lavazzoli v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 281 So. 2d 519. At the trial the prison captain testified to the above facts, as the basis for the search, namely that the defendant was an inmate of the prison camp on extended custody under a work release agreement, the terms of which were understood by the cap…
-
Tamburro v. State, 343 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…that the defendant had committed the offense of possession of cannabis. Clark v. State, 322 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975); State v. Daniel, 319 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); State v. Flores, 305 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Lavazzoli v. State, 281 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973). Hence, both the defendant’s [*639] arrest and the subsequent search of his vehicle were valid. The trial court therefore properly denied the motion to suppress the sawed-off shot gun which was secured as a result of that search.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Gustafson, 258 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)
- Perseo v. State, 242 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- United States v. Drew, 451 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Chapman v. State, 158 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- State v. Alvarez, 258 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Peerless Ins. Co. v. SUN Line Helicopters, Inc., 180 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Echols v. State, 201 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- In re Est. of Rosella M. Sager, 201 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)