LINDA LOUISE EVANS, 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.
The denial of the defendant's motion to suppress evidence was not error because the search was reasonable under exigent circumstances.
A highway patrolman found the appellant unresponsive in her stopped car and entered the vehicle to find her driver's license. During a subsequent sear…
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 Possession Of A Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was charged by information with two counts of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine. Her tendered plea of nolo contendere to one count, with reservation of right of appeal from an order denying her motion to suppress, was accepted. No sentence was imposed. She was placed on probation for one year. The other count was nolle prossed.
Appellant argues that denial of her motion to suppress as evidence the cocaine found in her possession was error, contending the search upon which it was obtained was illegal.
A highway patrolman saw the appellant pull her car off the road and stop. He approached the vehicle, but was unable to gain her attention, although he observed that her eyes were open. The officer gained entry into the car. With the woman being unable to communicate, he examined her pocketbook to inspect her driver’s license. Two other officers arrived. A Rescue Unit was summoned. A search was made for any identifying device which would delineate a medical disability that could account for her condition [under Section 901.215, Florida Statutes (1977)], and in doing so, there was revealed the substance for possession of which she was charged and prosecuted.
We reject as unsound the appellant’s contention that such search was illegal. The search was not unreasonable in the exigent circumstances. Webster v. State, 201 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Gilbert v. State, 289 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); United States v. Barone, 330 F. 2d 543 (2d Cir. 1964). The denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress was not error. The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wooten v. State, 398 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); State v. Hetzko, 283 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Gilbert v. State, 289 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Long v. State, 310 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1975); Hornblower v. State, 351 So. 2d 716 (Fla.1977); Evans v. State, 364 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978); Johnson v. State, 386 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). See also Grant v. State, 374 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979), a post-Min-cey decision applying the “plain view” exception where the entry was justified under another aspect of…
-
Weirich v. State, 394 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Evans v. State, 364 So. 2d 93 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). SCHWARTZ, J., dissents.…
Authorities Cited
- Webster v. State, 201 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- United States v. Barone, 330 F.2d 543 (2d Cir. 1964)
- Gilbert v. State, 289 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)