ROBERT TONY BAGOCUS, 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.
Bagocus appeals his conviction for marijuana and narcotics possession, challenging the admission of evidence from searches of his truck and his incriminating statements. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding both searches were consensual and the Miranda warnings were proper.
The searches were valid because they were conducted with Bagocus's consent, and there is no evidence that the officers' authority was improperly exercised. The incriminating statements were properly admitted because Bagocus was suitably warned of his Miranda rights before questioning.
[1] Agricultural inspection officers are entitled to stop a truck capable of transporting agricultural products that are subject to inspection.
[2] A driver's consent to an inspection of their vehicle by agricultural inspection officers is valid when given in response to a request, absent evidence that their will was…
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“Nothing in this record impeaches the trial court's finding that the searches on the highway and at the station were conducted with Bagocus' consent.”
Establishes that consent to search was properly found and not challenged by evidence in the record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBagocus drove a pickup truck with a camper top past an agricultural inspection station on an interstate highway. He was stopped by two uniformed agric…
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 Admissibility Of Incriminating Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
[*886] SMITH, Judge.
Convicted and sentenced after a jury trial for four offenses associated with his possession of marijuana and narcotics, Bagocus urges errors including the trial court’s failure to suppress evidence taken in a search of his truck and the admission in evidence of self-incriminating statements.
Bagocus drove his pickup truck, the bed of which was covered by a camper top, past an agricultural inspection station on an interstate highway. He was pursued and stopped by two uniformed and armed agricultural inspection officers in an official vehicle with a flashing light. According to the testimony of the officers and Bagocus, the officers advised Bagocus that he had passed an agricultural inspection station and that they would like to inspect the contents of his truck. Bagocus opened the rear glass section of the camper top, revealing objects covered by a canvas; the officers then requested that Bagocus open the tail gate, which he did. One of the officers climbed into the truck and found several bags which were taped closed. The officers directed Bagocus to return to the inspection station and, on the way, he twice stopped and pleaded with the officers to “work something out.” At the officers’ request, Bagocus again admitted them to the rear of the truck at the inspection station, and they found bags containing vegetable matter which they believed to be marijuana. Ba-gocus was arrested by a deputy sheriff who, after advising Bagocus of his Miranda rights, took incriminating statements.
Nothing in this record impeaches the trial court’s finding that the searches on the highway and at the station were conducted with Bagocus’ consent. When Bagocus passed the inspection station in a pickup truck capable of transporting agricultural products that were subject to inspection, the officers were entitled to stop the truck. They were further entitled to request Bagocus to permit the inspection. Bagocus complied. We decline to extend the holdings in Sarga v. State, 322 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) and Powell v. State, 332 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) to hold as a matter of law that uniformed agricultural inspection officers, carrying weapons they did not brandish in any way, have overborne the will of a lawfully stopped driver by simply asking him to permit an inspection.
Bagocus was suitably warned, upon his arrest, as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). There was no error in admitting in evidence his incriminating statements. We find no merit in Bagocus’ point that the state was permitted to use evidence of those statements at trial without having given appropriate notice, and the appeal is otherwise without merit.
AFFIRMED.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and BLACK, SUSAN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gluesenkamp v. State, 391 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1980)…ing of search warrants in other cases, or may conduct a search of any of the aforesaid vehicles without a warrant pursuant to s. 933.19. The fourth amendment rights of users of the highways are protected under the statute. Compare Bagocus v. State, 359 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), with Powell v. State, 332 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Section 570.15 is a regulation of transportation and the use of the highways of the state. It is a valid exercise of the police power in furtherance of the public health…
-
Rosell v. State, 433 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…tate, 376 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Gonterman v. State, 358 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Powell v. State, 332 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Sarga v. State, 322 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Appellee relies entirely on Bagocus v. State, 359 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 709 (Fla.1978). In Bagocus this court upheld the trial court’s finding of voluntary consent to the search where agricultural inspection officers requested that Bagoeus open the tailgate of his pickup truck, a…
-
Villari v. State, 372 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…ghway and at the station since he willingly opened the truck and there was no refusal or resistance to this limited search. See Eden v. State, 370 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Sharpe v. State, 366 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Bagocus v. State, 359 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); State v. Drake, 343 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). When appellant asked the foregoing question, however, he indicated lack of consent to any further search in that he questioned the officer’s authority to search further withou…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Powell v. State, 332 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Sarga v. State, 322 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)