STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM DAVID VOLK ET AL., APPELLEES
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 evidence obtained from an inventory search of an impounded vehicle. The court affirms the suppression, finding the police lacked necessity to impound the car and deviated from routine traffic procedures, making the search unconstitutional.
The court affirmed the suppression of evidence because the trial judge's findings—that there was no necessity for impounding the vehicle and that police deviated from usual traffic procedures—were well-supported by evidence, requiring affirmance on appeal.
[1] An inventory search of an impounded vehicle is permissible when the vehicle has been necessarily impounded after abandonment or when its sole occupant is unfit to drive d…
[2] Evidence obtained from an inventory search of a vehicle is suppressible if the impoundment of the vehicle was not necessary and contrary to usual police procedure.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“What the trial judge has found in this case is that there was no necessity for impounding the vehicle and that the police did so in this case contrary to the usual procedure followed in traffic cases.”
Establishes that the trial court's factual findings were dispositive to the suppression ruling.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice impounded a vehicle and conducted an inventory search that produced evidence. The trial judge found no necessity for the impoundment and determ…
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 Reasonable Search cases and more on FLexlaw
MANN, Chief Judge.
We have upheld inventory searches in cases in which an automobile has been necessarily impounded after abandonment1 or where its sole occupant is, because of intoxication, unfit to drive.2 What the trial judge has found in this case is that there was no necessity for impounding the vehicle and that the police did so in this case contrary to the usual procedure followed in traffic cases. On the strength of the trial judge’s well supported findings of fact we affirm the order suppressing evidence produced as a consequence of the inventory. Since our latest expression on the subject the Supreme Court of the United States has found a search reasonable where the officers conducting it had grounds to believe that the occupant of the vehicle, an intoxicated off-duty policeman, had his service revolver in the car which was wrecked and towed into a privately owned service station some seven miles from the police station.3 In Dombrowski, as in the case before us, the trial court’s finding of fact was supported by ample evidence of reasonable conduct, requiring affirmance on appeal. The law on the subject is amply stated in Judge Gibson’s comprehensive opinion for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Lawson.4 The situation presently before us is analogous to a pretextual arrest which results in the disclosure of evidence if the arrest is not one which would be routinely made under the circumstances regardless of the officer’s suspicions and prejudices. Then the evidence coming to his view would be suppressed; otherwise if the defendant’s conduct is such as to produce his arrest under routine police procedure. See State v. Holmes.5 See also, Virgil v. Superior Court of County of Placer, 1968, 268 Cal.App.2d 127, 73 Cal.Rptr. 793, for a case similar to this one, in which other drivers were available to remove the car to a safe place as an alternative to police custody, and State v. Hargiss, La. 1974, 288 So. 2d 633. Affirmed.
HOBSON, J., concurs.
McNULTY, J., dissents. . Godbee v. State, Fla.App.2d 1969, 224 So. 2d 441. . Urquhart v. State, Fla.App.2d 1971, 261 So. 2d 535. . Cady v. Dombrowski, 1973, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S.Ct. 2523. 37 L.Ed.2d 706. . 8th Oir. 1973, 487 F. 2d 468. See also, Annotation 48 A.L.R.3d 537. . Ma.App.2d 1971, 256 So. 2d 32.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Jenkins, 319 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…ll as sweet — Shakespeare. See Gagnon v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 337; Knight v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 900; Godbee v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 441; Urquhart v. State, Fla.App.1971, 261 So. 2d 535; State v. Volk, Fla.App.1974, 291 So. 2d 643; State v. Ruggles, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 692; 48 A.L.R.3d 537, 548, supra. See also Cady v. Dombrowski, supra. The foregoing cases support the proposition that a search conducted for the purpose of making an inventory of the contents of an autom…
-
Fredric Winton Altman v. State, 335 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…pound the car unnecessarily. Thus he cautioned enforcement officers “. . . [they] would make a grave mistake in relying excessively and unnecessarily upon inventory searches as a way around the Fourth Amendment.” In State v. Volk, Fla.App.2d, 1974, 291 So. 2d 643, the trial judge suppressed evidence produced in consequence of an inventory search of a motor vehicle. On appeal this court affirmed, finding that there was no necessity for impounding the vehicle and that such impoundment was done contrary to the…
-
Phelps v. State, 304 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Godbee v. State, Fla.App.2d 1969, 224 So. 2d 441, and Urquhart v. State, Fla.App.2d 1971, 261 So. 2d 535. Compare State v. Volk, Fla.App.2d 1974, 291 So. 2d 643. HOBSON, A. C. J., GRIMES, J., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1973)
- Felda Douglas Godbee v. State, 224 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- State v. Holmes, 256 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- United States v. Lawson, 487 F.2d 468 (8th Cir. 1973)
- Urquhart v. State, 261 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)