NOAH PAUL SEGAL, 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.
This case concerns the denial of a motion to suppress physical evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the evidence was lawfully viewed and seized under the plain view doctrine.
Yes, the denial of the motion to suppress physical evidence was proper. The court found competent substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the officers viewed and identified the stolen item from a lawful vantage point in plain view.
[1] A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is presumed correct on appeal and should be interpreted in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's conclus…
[2] Physical evidence observed by law enforcement officers from a lawful vantage point is admissible under the plain view doctrine.
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“A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress comes to an appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness and an appellate court should interpret the evidence and all reasonable inferences and deductions capable of being drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to sustain the trial court’s conclusion.”
Establishes the standard of review for suppression rulings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with burglary. He moved to suppress physical evidence and statements. The motion to suppress statements was granted, but the mot…
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 For Suppression Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant was charged by information with burglary of a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny. At arraignment, he entered a plea of not guilty. A motion to suppress physical evidence and a motion to suppress confessions, admissions, and statements were filed. The motion to suppress the statements was granted, however, the motion to supress the physical evidence was denied. Appellant thereupon withdrew his prior plea and entered a plea of nolo con-tendere, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress the physical evidence.
The trial court thereupon entered a finding of guilt, withheld adjudication, and ordered that appellant be put on probation. This appeal follows. A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress comes to an appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness and an appellate court should interpret the evidence and all reasonable inferences and deductions capable of being drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to sustain the trial court’s conclusion. Jester v. State, 339 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Wigfall v. State, 323 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
With the above guidelines in mind, it is our opinion that, after carefully reviewing the record and briefs, there was competent substantial evidence to support the trial judge’s conclusion that the two arresting officers, in furtherance of their investigative duties, viewed and reasonably identified the alleged stolen item (television set) from their lawful vantage point at the entrance to appellant’s residence when, in response to the officers’ knocking, appellant opened his door revealing the television set in “plain view.” Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968); Bailey v. State, 319 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1975); State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla.1971); see also Moore v. Wainwright, 248 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971) and State v. O’Steen, 238 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barrios v. State, 397 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…a manner most favorable to the trial court. Smith v. State, 378 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1979); McNamara v. State, 357 [*442] So. 2d 410 (Fla.1978); Machado v. State, 363 So. 2d 1132 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 459 (Fla.1979); Segal v. State, 353 So. 2d 938 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Lovely v. State, 351 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Churney v. State, 348 So. 2d 395 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Jester v. State, 339 So. 2d 242 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 948 (Fla.1977); Wigfall v. State, 323 So. 2d 587…
-
Krishna Gopal Maragh v. State, 905 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…’s factual findings if they are supported by competent, substantial evidence, and review legal conclusions de novo. State v. Rabb, 881 So. 2d 587, 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Saturnino-Boudet v. State, 682 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Segal v. State, 353 So. 2d 938, 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The statements which the defendant attempted to suppress were made during an [*208] unrecorded interview with Detective Gold-blatt of the Miami-Dade Police Department. At the suppression hearing, while Detective Goldblatt…
-
Shawn Kevin Parker/Jeff C. Duckham and James Joseph Way mire v. State, 444 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…te court clothed with a presumption of correctness, we should interpret the evidence, and all reasonable inferences and deductions capable of being drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to sustain the trial court’s conclusion. Segal v. State, 353 So. 2d 938, 939 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). For this reason, I agree with the majority’s decision to affirm as to this point assailing the application. The majority’s opinion did address appellants’ argument regarding the absence of the identity on the application i…
Authorities Cited
- Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 (U.S. 1968)
- 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)
- Jester v. State, 339 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- State v. Boy Elijah O'Steen, 238 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Moore v. Wainwright, 248 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)