STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH EDWARD HALL AND RICHARD BRUCE BLALOCK, APPELLEES
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 appealed the suppression of marijuana and jumper cables found in a truck during a police investigation at a filling station where an alarm had been triggered. The court reversed the suppression order, holding that the officer lawfully observed the marijuana in plain view, creating probable cause to search the vehicle for additional contraband.
The suppression order was reversed. The officer had the right to be near the truck during the burglary investigation, and the plain view observation of the marijuana baggie on the floorboard created probable cause to search the vehicle for additional contraband. The court found it unnecessary to determine the legality of the arrest or whether the search was justified as a search incident to arrest or inventory search.
[1] A police officer lawfully present in the vicinity of a vehicle may seize contraband observed in plain view on the floorboard.
[2] Observation of contraband in plain view creates probable cause to search a vehicle for additional contraband.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 officer had the right to be in the vicinity of the truck while conducting his investigation of the apparent burglary. When, before entering the vehicle, the officer saw the baggie of marijuana on the floorboard in plain view, such created probable cause to believe that the vehicle was carrying contraband.”
The court's holding that the plain view doctrine justified the search based on the officer's lawful position and observation of marijuana.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice responding to a silent burglar alarm at a filling station found appellees working on their truck on the premises with the owner's permission. W…
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
McCORD, Chief Judge.
This interlocutory appeal is from an order suppressing evidence — a baggie of marijuana and battery jumper cables.
Police officers, while investigating the tripping of a silent burglar alarm at a filling station, found appellees working on their truck on the filling station premises where they had remained with permission of the owner following his closing of the station earlier that evening. While the officers were checking appellees’ drivers licenses for their identities and checking the building in connection with a possible burglary, appellees became belligerent and began yelling profanities at the officers in loud voices. They were arrested for breach of the peace, and one officer went over to their truck to make an inventory search of it prior to its impoundment. A door of the truck was open, and before beginning a search, the officer saw a baggie of marijuana in plain view on the floorboard. The vehicle was then completely searched, and battery jumper cables were found behind the seat. Upon the owner’s arrival at the station, he identified the jumper cables as having been taken from his station. Appel-lee contends the search was illegal — that the arrest of appellees for breach of the peace was not a legal arrest and, therefore, there was no basis for a search as an incident to it; that even if the arrest was legal, the search of the vehicle was not justified as a search incident to the arrest; that there was no justification for an inventory search.
It is unnecessary that we determine the legality of the arrest or the search as an incident to the arrest or the legality of the search as an inventory search. The officer had the right to be in the vicinity of the truck while conducting his investigation of the apparent burglary. When, before entering the vehicle, the officer saw the baggie of marijuana on the floorboard in plain view, such created probable cause to believe that the vehicle was carrying contraband. The search of the vehicle for additional contraband was then fully justified. See Sheff v. State, 329 So. 2d 270 (Fla.1976); State v. Nieman, 292 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4 DCA 1974); Beck v. State, 181 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 2 DCA 1966); Carroll v. U. S., 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925).
REVERSED.
BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hughes, 562 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…rboard of the vehicle, were entitled to lawfully seize the cocaine without a warrant. State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971); State v. Coleman, 502 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); State v. Milmoe, 541 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); State v. Hall, 352 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); United States v. Lara, 517 F. 2d 209 (5th Cir.1975). 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure (2d ed.), § 2.2(b); 14 Fla.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 502. REVERSED. ERVIN, J., and THOMPSON, FORD L. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur. . Officer B…
Authorities Cited
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925)
- Sheff v. State, 329 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 1976)
- Beck v. State, 181 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- State v. Nieman, 292 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Hardwicke Cos. v. Freed, 292 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)