KENNETH H. GROSS AND JAMES M. RUFF, APPELLANTS,
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 court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the warrantless search of the airplane was reasonable under the circumstances.
[1] Evidence of possession of a large quantity of cannabis is sufficient to support a conviction for possession of more than five grams of cannabis.
[2] A warrantless search of a highly movable airplane is reasonable under the circumstances when inspired by the odor of contraband emitting from the aircraft.
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 intelligenceAppellants were pilot and co-pilot of a plane found carrying a large quantity of cannabis upon landing. They were convicted of possession of cannabis …
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 Fifth Amendment Right To Remain Silent cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge.
The appellants were the pilot and co-pilot of a plane which, as a search initially inspired by the odor of marijuana emitting from it revealed, was carrying a very large quantity of cannabis when it surreptitiously landed and was detained at the Martin County Airport. They appeal their convictions, after a jury trial, for possession of more than five grams of cannabis. We affirm.
We hold that the evidence against both defendants was more than sufficient to support the charge of which they were convicted, see Davis v. State, 350 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Shannon v. State, 320 So. 2d 855, 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), rev’d on other grounds, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla.1976); and that the warrantless search of the highly movable airplane was, under all the circumstances, entirely reasonable. Miranda v. State, 354 So. 2d 411, 413-414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); State v. Toffolio, 349 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Davis v. State, supra; Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977); U. S. v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977).
The defendants’ final point concerns the fact that the prosecutor elicited, on direct examination of a customs agent who interviewed the defendants some thirty minutes after their detention, that both had refused to respond to his questions concerning their identity and activities. While this inquiry was indeed an impermissible comment on the defendants’ tacit invocation of their Fifth Amendment right to silence, Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976); Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1975), we must nonetheless reject the appellants’ contention on this issue on the authority of the Supreme Court’s recent and decisive opinion in Clark v. State (Fla.1978). The record plainly shows that the objection was waived below by virtue of the defendants’ failure, as Clark requires, to move for a mistrial because of the incident or even to secure a ruling from the Court on the simple objection which apparently was made.
Affirmed.
DOWNEY, C. J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1977)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976)
- Shannon v. State, 335 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1976)
- Bennett v. State, 316 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1975)
- Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Miranda v. State, 354 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Peterson v. State, 350 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Davis v. State, 350 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Shannon v. State, 320 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- State v. Toffolio, 349 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)