JOHN FREDERICK HUNT, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
John Hunt appeals his drug convictions, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle. The Florida appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that police had reasonable suspicion to stop Hunt's vehicle based on reliable informant information and that Hunt's voluntary consent to search his trunk made the warrantless search lawful.
The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress because: (1) the officers had sufficient reasonable suspicion based on reliable informant information to justify the investigatory stop, (2) a warrantless search was justified under these circumstances even without an arrest, and (3) Hunt's voluntary consent to the search eliminated any objection to the evidence disclosed.
[1] Information furnished by a reliable informer, detailing past drug transactions and current drug supply activities, can justify a stop for investigation.
[2] A warrantless search is justified when officers act upon information from a reliable informer, even if not incident to a lawful arrest.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The information on which the police officers acted carried enough indicia of reliability to justify them in stopping appellant for investigation. Under these circumstances a warrantless search was justified even though it was not an incident to a lawful arrest.”
Establishes the court's holding that reliable informant information justified both the stop and the warrantless search.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers received information from a reliable informer that Hunt had sold drugs from his automobile on multiple occasions and was a neighborhoo…
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 Informant Reliability cases and more on FLexlaw
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of two judgments of conviction and sentence based upon his plea of nolo contendere to two separate in-formations charging him with drug violations. His sole point on appeal challenges the correctness of the trial court’s ruling which denied his motion to suppress the evidence which formed the basis of the charges against him. It was not until after his motion was denied that he tendered his pleas of nolo contendere on which the judgments of conviction were rendered.
We have carefully reviewed the record of the hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress. It appears without conflict that the officers who stopped appellant’s automobile for the purpose of investigation acted upon information furnished to them by a reliable informer. The informer told the officers that he had purchased drugs from appellant on several occasions in the past, all of which purchases were made from appellant’s automobile. The informant further stated that appellant was the supplier of drugs to many people living in the neighborhood of his home. Immediately after giving such information, the informer saw appellant pass by in his automobile and so informed the officers who promptly gave chase and, after overtaking appellant, signalled him to stop his vehicle on the side of the road. The officers identified themselves and asked appellant if he would mind opening the trunk of his automobile, to which appellant readily assented. Appellant thereupon unlocked his trunk and opened it so that its contents were in full view. It was then that the officers observed certain material which, upon investigation, proved to be illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia.
The information on which the police officers acted carried enough indicia of reliability to justify them in stopping appellant for investigation.1 Under these circumstances a warrantless search was justified even though it was not an incident to a lawful arrest.2 Furthermore, the evidence establishes-without conflict that after appellant was stopped by the officers, he consented without objection to opening the trunk of his car for examination. There is no evidence but that such consent was given freely and voluntarily without coercion or intimidation. Having consented to the search, appellant is in no position to later object to the evidence which was disclosed thereby.3 For the foregoing reasons we conclude that the seizure of the evidence sought to be suppressed was neither unreasonable nor unlawful under the circumstances shown by the record, and that the trial court did not commit error in denying appellant’s motion to suppress. The judgments appealed are accordingly affirmed.
RAWLS, C. J., and CARROLL, CHARLES A., Associate Judge, concur. . Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 207, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959).
. State v. Sanders, (Fla.App.1970) 239 So. 2d 120; Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612.
. Grimes v. State, (Fla.1971) 244 So. 2d 130; Jackson v. State, (Fla.1961) 132 So. 2d 596. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973)
- Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1959)
- Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1972)
- Mitchell v. Lublin, 358 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1959)
- Jackson v. State, 132 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1961)
- Grimes v. State, 244 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Sanders, 239 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)