KENNETH GLENN WEED, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
Kenneth Glenn Weed appeals his conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, challenging an inventory search of his automobile conducted by police. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held the inventory search was unreasonable and illegal, reversed the conviction, and remanded for a new trial because evidence obtained from the search was tainted.
The inventory search was unreasonable and illegal because it did not meet the criteria established in State v. Jenkins and was not supported by legitimate police procedures. Evidence and confessions obtained from the illegal search were tainted and should have been suppressed under Wong Sun principles.
[1] An inventory search of an automobile is unreasonable and illegal if it does not meet the criteria and guidelines established for bona fide inventory searches conducted in…
[2] Whether an inventory search is unreasonable and has been misused depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.
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“Whether or not an inventory search is unreasonable and has been misused will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether an inventory search is constitutional, requiring case-by-case analysis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWeed and two other occupants were arrested in a Winn-Dixie parking lot during business hours. Police conducted an inventory search of the parked vehic…
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 Tainted Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Chief Judge.
This is a plenary appeal via habeas corpus from a conviction of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. Since the issues have been well briefed and discussed' in depth at oral argument we shall concisely present our dispositive conclusions.
The inventory search of appellant’s automobile was unreasonable and illegal in that it did not meet the criteria and guidelines provided in the case of State v. Jenkins, 319 So. 2d 91 (Fla.App. 4th, 1975). In State v. Jenkins, supra, this court approved an inventory search when the totality of the circumstances demonstrated the search was a bona fide inventory made in the ordinary course of police procedure. The court held that:
“Whether or not an inventory search is unreasonable and has been misused will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.”
In the Jenkins case the defendant was the sole occupant of the searched vehicle, he had been arrested late at night and the car was on the open highway. The Jenkins defendant did not protest the inventory search. In this case all the occupants of the car, defendant and two others, were arrested, but the arrest was made during trade hours and the car was parked in a Winn-Dixie parking lot. Defendant did protest the search. There was no reason given by the State for an inventory search except that the car was “unattended.” That is not sufficient to justify the search. See: In re 1972 Porsche 2 Dr., ’74 Fla.Lic.Tag ID 91780, 307 So. 2d 451 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1975), in which the court stated:
“At the hearing in the trial court, the state relied simply on the policy of the Dade County Public Safety Department. It was contended that the vehicle was inventoried, searched, and towed as a matter of ‘self-protection’ since the car was not located at the owner’s, Higgins’, residence and therefore potentially was subject to a claim that either the car or loose articles lying therein were taken. We find such a rationale legally insufficient.” Id. at 453.
For inventory searches approved by appellate tribunals see State v. Jenkins, supra; Urquhart v. State, 261 So. 2d 535 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1971); State v. Ruggles, 245 So. 2d 692 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1971); Godbee v. State, 224 So. 2d 441 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1969); Knight v. State, 212 So. 2d 900 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1968).
The contraband and confessions obtained from this defendant were .tainted by the illegal inventory search, and should have been suppressed. Wong Sun v. U. S., 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).
The appealed judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
OWEN and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Fredric Winton Altman v. State, 335 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…District stressed that where the position of a car did not create a hazard an individual should be afforded the choice of leaving his car in its location or calling someone else to take possession of it. And in Weed v. Wainwright, Fla.App.4th, 1975, 325 So. 2d 44, that court held that where there was no reason for search of defendant’s car after an officer had arrested its occupants, that such a search was illegal when the officers merely presumed the car “unattended.” There the owner’s car was left parked d…
-
Chuze v. State, 330 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…endment. Appellant, on his own initiative, suggested an entirely reasonable alternative to having his vehicle towed and impounded by the police, thereby manifesting his choice not to submit his possessions to police custody, see, Weed v. Wainwright, 325 So. 2d 44 (Fla.App. 4th 1975), and we think appellant wa‘s entitled to have this choice honored if at all practicable. See, State v. Jenkins, supra. Apparently conceding the reasonableness of appellant’s proposal, the police officer at the scene acquiesced in…
-
G. B. v. State, 339 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…onable searches and seizures. State v. Jenkins, 319 So. 2d 91 at 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Gagnon v. State, 212 So. 2d 337 (Fla.3d DCA 1968). Whether an inventory search is reasonable depends upon the totality of the circumstances. Weed v. Wainwright, 325 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Godbee v. State, 224 So. 2d 441 at 443 (Fla.2d DCA 1969). When appellant challenged the impoundment and inventory search of his vehicle the state was required to show that the vehicle was illegally parked or was in some other wa…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- Felda Douglas Godbee v. State, 224 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- State v. Jenkins, 319 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Commodore Plaza AT Century 21 Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Schwartz, 307 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Urquhart v. State, 261 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Knight v. State, 212 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Worthern v. State, 245 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- State v. Ruggles, 245 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)