STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES F. DEARDEN, 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 a trial court order suppressing evidence of barbiturates found during an inventory search of a defendant's impounded vehicle following a DWI arrest. The appellate court reversed, holding that the impoundment and inventory search were reasonable and lawful under the circumstances.
The impoundment and inventory search were reasonable and lawful. Although reasonable requests regarding vehicle disposition must be complied with, there is no requirement to advise a silent arrestee of alternatives to impoundment or provide consultation regarding property care.
[1] An impoundment of a vehicle is lawful when it is necessitated by the circumstances of the arrest.
[2] An arresting officer does not have an affirmative obligation to advise an arrested driver of alternatives to vehicle impoundment.
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 essence of a lawful impoundment of a vehicle is necessity”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether an impoundment is lawful
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Gavin observed Dearden's automobile cross a median grass strip and pulled it over. Dearden then put the vehicle in reverse and struck the offi…
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 Inventory Search cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Chief Judge.
Appellant, State of Florida, brings this interlocutory appeal from the order of the trial court granting a motion to suppress made by appellee/defendant, James F. Dearden.
The sole point raised on appeal is whether the impoundment and inventory of appel-lee’s automobile were reasonable.
At the hearing on the motion only two witnesses, both police officers for the City of St. Petersburg, were called to testify: Thomas A. Gavin and Richard F. Roseberry. Officer Gavin testified that he saw appel-lee’s automobile cross the grassed area of a median strip while turning into a parking lot. The officer pulled behind appellee’s automobile which appellee had momentarily stopped. Appellee then put his vehicle in reverse and hit the front of Officer Gavin’s police cruiser. Gavin administered a field sobriety test to appellee to determine whether he was driving while under the influence of alcohol and arrested him for DWI. A warrantless inventory was undertaken at the scene to catalogue and protect the personal property in the automobile before it was moved to the police impoundment area. A small bottle containing five capsules which later proved to be barbiturates was found under the front seat of appellee’s vehicle. Appellee was the only occupant of the vehicle. He did not request an alternative to impoundment nor did the police officers suggest any.
Appellee contends that an arresting officer has an affirmative obligation to advise a person arrested while driving an automobile of alternatives to impoundment of his vehicle. While there are opinions which have held that reasonable requests as to the disposition of an arrestee’s vehicle be complied, with, case law has not gone so far as to require that a silent arrestee be consulted as to his wishes concerning the care of his property or be advised of other means of providing for removal.
From a thorough analysis of the relevant case law in Florida, Judge Scheb, in a recent opinion from this court, discerned that the essence of a lawful impoundment of a vehicle is necessity. Altman v. State, 335 So. 2d 626 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). We believe that the circumstances attendant to the arrest in the case before us do not demonstrate any reasonable alternative to impoundment and that it was clearly necessary and lawful to impound appellee’s vehicle. At the time of the arrest for DWI appellee was intoxicated which would have diminished his ability to form and articulate any preference he might have had as to the disposition of his property. The automobile was stopped in the “middle line of the traffic driveway” in “a business area where it impeded traffic and commerce. . . .” which necessitated removal.
The scope of the search of appellee’s automobile was well within the boundaries of a valid inventory search. See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976).
Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
McNULTY and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Sanders v. State, 403 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1981)…enforcement officer has no duty to advise a silent arrestee of alternatives to his vehicle’s impoundment. This holding is in accord with previous Second District decisions in State v. Miller, 369 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), and State v. Dearden, 347 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), and in conflict with the decisions of the Fourth District in Session v. State, 353 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Jones v. State, 345 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); State v. Jenkins, 319 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). We recen…
-
Fields v. State, 369 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…earch was not pretextual. We agree and the judgment below is, accordingly, AFFIRMED. BOYER, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur. . 329 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). . 224 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1969). . 339 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976). . 347 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977). . 335 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976). . 319 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). . 413 U.S. 433, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973).…
-
Granville v. State, 348 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…ally parked outside the courthouse; and In re 1972 Porsche, 2 Dr., 307 So. 2d 451 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), where the ear was legally parked on the street outside the residence of a friend of the defendant. While we have recently held in State v. Dearden, 347 So. 2d 462 (Fla.2d DCA 1977), that a silent arrestee need not be consulted as to his wishes concerning the care of his vehicle that case is not controlling here. Reasonable alternatives to impoundment were available, for example the car could have been left wh…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976)
- Fredric Winton Altman v. State, 335 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)