ARTHUR JESTER, 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.
Arthur Jester challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of narcotics implements found in his vehicle. The Florida appellate court affirmed the suppression denial, holding that the officer lawfully observed the contraband in plain view while positioned where he had a legal right to be.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding that the officer lawfully observed the balled up newspaper containing narcotics implements in plain view while positioned where he had a legal right to be, and this observation gave the officer probable cause to detain Jester and inspect his arm.
[1] Appellate courts review trial court rulings on motions to suppress with a presumption of correctness, interpreting evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the tr…
[2] Observation of an object in plain view by a police officer, who is lawfully in a position to see it, does not constitute a search and the object may be seized.
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“It is not a search to observe, and to seize what is so placed where it may be seen by a police officer who is where he has a legal right to be.”
Establishes the plain view doctrine that permits seizure of contraband observed in plain view when the officer is lawfully positioned.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice encountered a lawfully parked 1973 vehicle with a temporary license tag. The officer asked the driver for identification, then asked passenger …
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 Presumption Of Correctness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Arthur Jester, defendant in the trial court, pled nolo contendere to an affidavit of violation of probation, and to a charge of possession of narcotics implements, reserving the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress. He was sentenced to six months in the Dade County Stockade on the violation of probation, and placed on probation for two years for the crime of possession of narcotics implements. The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress.
Generally, a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress comes to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness and, in testing the accuracy of the trial court’s conclusions, the appellate court should interpret the evidence and all reasonable inferences and deductions capable of being drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to sustain the trial court’s conclusion. Ponder v. State, 323 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla.3rd DCA 1975); Wigfall v. State, 323 So. 2d 587 (Fla.3rd DCA 1975).
The record reflects that on the day in question, a City of Miami police officer encountered a lawfully parked automobile for the reason that it was a 1973 vehicle with a temporary license tag, and the police were . . having stolen cars with temporary tags. . . .” The officer asked the driver for identification, which was shown, and then asked the passenger, Arthur Jester, to produce his identification. When Jester failed to produce identification, the officer asked both men out of the car. As they were getting out, the officer walked around the car and noticed a balled up newspaper partially underneath Jester’s side of the car. Inspection revealed narcotics implements inside, and a red blood stain in the middle of the newspaper. The officer then placed Jester under arrest for possession of narcotics implements and asked him to roll up his sleeve, whereupon, the officer observed a “fresh track mark” on Jester’s arm.
On appeal Jester contends that the initial encounter by the officer with the car was unreasonable and unconstitutional, since the officer was not acting on probable cause: there was no indication that a crime had been committed in the vicinity; there was no reasonable indication that either the driver or Jester had committed, was committing or was about to commit a crime; Jester was merely seated in a lawfully parked car; and the officer was merely acting on suspicion of the temporary tag. Since the initial encounter was unjustified and unconstitutional, he argues, the subsequent detention, questioning, search and seizure were also unjustified and unconstitutional. He argues further that even had the initial identification check of the driver been lawful, the subsequent demand for identification of Jester, a passenger in the vehicle, was totally unjustifiable since the officer testified that he was satisfied with the driver’s identification. The ruling of the Florida Supreme Court in Bailey v. State, 319 So. 2d 22, 26 (Fla.1975), supports this contention.
Although Jester’s position is a highly persuasive one, it is not determinative of this appeal, since the initial encounter in this case is not the test to use. The record reflects that the observation of the balled up newspaper while walking around the car gave the officer probable cause to detain Jester and inspect his arm, as he was lawfully in a position to see the newspaper. We therefore find merit in the State’s contention that the balled up newspaper containing the blood stain and the narcotics implements was in plain view lying partially underneath the car. It is not a search to observe, and to seize what is so placed where it may be seen by a police officer who is where he has a legal right to be. State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225, 227 (Fla.1971); Atland v. State, 330 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Observation by a police officer of an object in plain view when the officer has a legal right to be in the position to have that view is not a search and such object may be properly seized by the officer and introduced into evidence in a criminal proceeding. State v. Daniel, 319 So. 2d 582, 583 (Fla.4th DCA 1975).
Having found ample evidence in the record to support the trial judge’s denial of the motion to suppress, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Albo v. State, 379 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1980)…held that observation of an object by a police officer in plain view is not a search when the officer has a legal right to be in the position to have that view. Such object may be seized by the officer and introduced into evidence. Jester v. State, 339 So. 2d 242, 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). When contraband is the object spotted in plain view, it may be immediately seized because of its nature. State v. Redding, 362 So. 2d 170, 171-72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). In the instant case Detective Mastaler suspected that the…
-
State v. Melendez, 392 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…olidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); State v. White, 312 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). . State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971); State v. Hughes, 375 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979); Jester v. State, 339 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976) cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 948 (Fla.1977); State v. Daniel, 319 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Golphin v. State, 293 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). . Evidence: State v. Belcher, 317 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Castle v. State,…
-
Churney v. State, 348 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ting the accuracy of the trial court’s conclusion, the appellate court should interpret the evidence and all reasonable inferences and deductions capable of being drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to sustain the trial judge. Jester v. State, 339 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). No error having been shown in the denial of the motion to suppress on any of the grounds asserted by defendant, the trial court is affirmed. Defendant’s next point is that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction on…
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
- State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- Bailey v. State, 319 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)
- Sautter v. Victory Auto Rental Corp., 323 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Lovon Ponder v. State, 323 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- State v. Daniel, 319 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Atland v. State, 330 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)