STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE M. LEE, 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 from an order suppressing evidence of marijuana found in a vehicle during a warrantless search. The trial court erroneously believed a search warrant was required for all vehicle searches, when in fact warrantless searches of moving vehicles are permissible upon probable cause. The appellate court reversed and remanded for proper factual findings regarding the informant's reliability and whether probable cause existed.
The warrantless search of a moving vehicle is lawful when supported by probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, which is an exception to the general warrant requirement. An informant's tip may supply probable cause for such a search, provided it meets the requirements of reliability and recent observation. The trial court's order suppressing the evidence was improper because it was based on the erroneous belief that a search warrant was required.
[1] A warrantless search of a motor vehicle on the open highway is permissible if there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband.
[2] The search of a moving vehicle based on probable cause is an exception to the warrant requirement.
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“The search of a motor vehicle on the open highway may be made without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle presently contains contraband.”
Establishes the primary legal rule that warrantless vehicle searches are permissible when supported by probable cause, citing Carroll and Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA reliable confidential informant previously observed marijuana in the trunk of a vehicle and provided Agent Mathews with an accurate description and …
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'S Tip Reliability cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrant-less search of defendant’s automobile. After a hearing on the motion, the trial judge ruled as a matter of law that the officers should have sought a search warrant from a magistrate and that the search was conducted without probable cause.
The record of the suppression hearing indicates that Agent Mathews testified that he had received information provided by a reliable confidential informant that the informant had previously observed a quantity of marijuana in the trunk of a vehicle. After receiving an accurate description of the car and its location, Mathews proceeded to the address and fifteen minutes thereafter observed two men drive away. A radio call to the nearést patrol car resulted in a stop and search which revealed a paper bag containing a quantity of marijuana in the trunk. Appellee was then arrested.
The search of a motor vehicle on the open highway may be made without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle presently contains contraband. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1962); Fla.Stat. § 933.19 (1973); Jetmore v. State, Fla.App. 4th 1973, 275 So. 2d 61. The search of a moving vehicle upon probable cause is one exception to the general requirement that searches without a search warrant are unreasonable. See, also, Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970). Although an informant’s tip may supply the probable cause to search an automobile, it must also meet the requirements of recent observation. See, Rodriguez v. State, Fla. 1974, 297 So. 2d 15.
It is apparent from the order of the court below that its finding was based upon the erroneous belief that the search of the vehicle in the present case was invalid without a search warrant. As a result of this misapprehension, the record is inadequate as to the factual findings of the court with respect to the reliability of the informant and the credibility of his information. See, Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959).
Therefore, the order of the trial court granting appellee’s motion to suppress is reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine the reliability and credibility of the informant and whether or not there was probable cause under Carroll, supra, to believe that the vehicle presently contained contraband.
McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. John v. State, 356 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…to make factual findings that the informant was reliable and the information credible. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); State v. Lee, 313 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Samuels v. State, 318 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 21 (Fla.1976). The trial court made no such findings and the record is inadequate with respect to the reliability of the informant. Therefore, the ord…
-
Samuels v. State, 318 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…ect to the reliability of informant arid the credibility of his information. Aguilar v. Texas, 1964, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723; Spinelli v. U. S., 1969, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637, and State v. Lee, Fla.App.2d 1975, 313 So. 2d 441. Accordingly, the case is reversed as to the trial court’s finding that the appellant consented to the search and seizure, but remanded for determination as to whether there was probable cause for search of the appellant’s vehicle and a seizure of…
-
Gadsden v. State, 498 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…r to stop a vehicle and search it without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle is carrying contraband. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); § 933.19, Fla.Stat. (1985); State v. Lee, 313 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). The justification for this exception is that in these circumstances it is not practicable to obtain a warrant, since an automobile can quickly be moved from the jurisdiction where the warrant would ordinarily be sought. Id. 267 U…
Authorities Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925)
- Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (U.S. 1964)
- Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1969)
- Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1970)
- Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1959)
- Rodriguez v. State, 297 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1974)
- Jetmore v. State, 275 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)