JOHN WILL TOLBERT, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained from an inventory search of defendant's vehicle, holding that the police impoundment of the car was not legally justified and therefore the search was unlawful.
The police had no legal justification for impounding the defendant's automobile and therefore no legal justification for searching it. The trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence.
[1] An inventory search of a vehicle is invalid if the vehicle was impounded without legal justification.
[2] A police officer's belief that impoundment is required by department policy does not justify impoundment if the circumstances do not fall within the enumerated situations…
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“The facts disclose that two obvious alternative procedures existed that would preclude this warrantless search of defendant's automobile. The car was lawfully parked. The defendant should have been given the option of leaving same. His friend could have driven the car as requested.”
Establishes that the court considered less intrusive alternatives available to police, which supports reversal of the impoundment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers arrested Tolbert on a municipal contempt of court warrant while he was in a lawfully parked car in a business district. Tolbert reques…
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 Impoundment Of Vehicle cases and more on FLexlaw
PARHAM, Associate Judge.
The trial court denied the appellant/defendant’s motion to suppress evidence on grounds that a police search of the defendant’s car was a valid inventory search. The defendant thereafter plead nolo contendere to possession of more than 5 grams of marijuana in violation of F.S. 893.13(l)(e). As authorized in State v. Ashley, Fla.1971, 245 So. 2d 225, the trial court received the defendant’s plea with reservation of right to appellate review of the legality of the seizure of the evidence.
The sole question on appeal relates to the legality of this “inventory” search made by the police pursuant to impounding the defendant’s car. The search and seizure complained of herein occurred at approximately 5:00 A.M., March 15, 1975. While on routine patrol in a business district of Orlando, Florida, two police officers, Price and Ludwig, noticed a car parked off Buck Alley with two subjects in it. The officers approached the vehicle and asked for identification, the car being parked near a row of businesses in a high crime area. The car was lawfully parked. A teletype check of the identification given revealed that the defendant was wanted on a municipal contempt of court warrant. Defendant was thereafter arrested on that charge and told that his vehicle would be impounded pursuant to department policy. During the arresting process, defendant asked that Willie Albert Gray, the other individual in the car, be allowed to take custody and control of defendant’s car. This request was denied. Officer Price testified that he felt he had authority to impound the vehicle pursuant to department regulations. In fact, Officer Price’s testimony showed that the arrest of defendant under the facts herein presented was not one of the situations enumerated in the regulation which required impoundment.
The defendant’s car was summarily “impounded”. A search disclosed more than 5 grams of marijuana under the floor mat. He was then arrested for possession of same.
Willie Albert Gray testified that he was twenty-five years old and had known defendant almost all his life. He further testified that one of the officers said he could take custody of defendant’s car, which the officer later denied.
The facts disclose that two obvious alternative procedures existed that would preclude this warrantless search of defendant’s automobile. The car was lawfully parked. The defendant should have been given the option of leaving same. His friend could have driven the car as requested. This option was denied. The officer in question not only disregarded the plain controlling law on the subject, but the departmental regulations enacted to give proper guidelines to insure proper police restraint in unnecessarily taking over and unreasonably searching citizen’s private automobiles. There was no legal justification for impounding defendant’s automobile. It follows that there was no legal justification for searching same.
The Court below erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. We reverse. These cases are controlling: State v. Jenkins, Fla.App.4th, 1975, 319 So. 2d 91; Weed v. Wainwright, Fla.App.4th, 1975, 325 So. 2d 44; Chuze v. State, Fla.App.4th, 1976, 330 So. 2d 166; and Jones v. State, Fla.App.4th, 345 So. 2d 809, opinion filed April 22, 1977. See also Altman v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1976, 335 So. 2d 626.
We hereby reverse the Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant on Probation and remand the cause for the entry of an order granting defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence and for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED, with directions.
DOWNEY and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. McLAUGHLIN, 454 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Hicks v. State, 398 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Agnew v. State, 376 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); G.B. v. State, 339 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Godbee v. State, 224 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Tolbert v. State, 348 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). . Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). . Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970).…
-
Agnew v. State, 376 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…lorida courts have held that the mere fact that a vehicle is unattended does not give anyone the right to search the vehicle. G. B. v. State, 339 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Granville v. State, 348 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Tolbert v. State, 348 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The State urges us to sustain the trial court’s order denying appellants’ motions to suppress under the rule of State v. Clyde, 299 So. 2d 136, 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). In that case this court stated: . [A]n affirmance of the r…
-
Lovett v. State, 403 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…vehicle is left unattended does not give anyone the right to search it. This is particularly true if the vehicle is not illegally parked, as was the case here. See Agnew v. State, 376 So. 2d 13 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); Granville, supra; Tolbert v. State, 348 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Benton, supra; G. B. v. State, 339 So. 2d 696 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). The State urges us to affirm this search as being justified as a police “community caretaking function” and cites Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S.Ct. 2523,…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Jenkins, 319 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Fredric Winton Altman v. State, 335 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Chuze v. State, 330 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Weed v. Louie L. Wainwright, 325 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Jones v. State, 345 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)