Alderman v. State, 77-1314
| Decision Date | 29 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1314,77-1314 |
| Citation | 356 So.2d 928 |
| Parties | Everette D. ALDERMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Bartow, and Wayne Chalu, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant Alderman pled nolo contendere to the misdemeanor offense of receiving stolen property, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence. The trial judge withheld adjudication and placed appellant on probation for one year. This appeal ensued.
The facts leading up to appellant's arrest were these: Four police officers were investigating appellant's next-door neighbor concerning two stolen motor vehicles. While at the neighbor's residence, they noticed an automobile with the engine and interior missing parked in appellant's driveway. Becoming suspicious, Detective Delisle asked appellant if he could check the identification number on the car. Appellant said he was welcome to do so.
Delisle checked the identification plate on the door and discovered that it was attached with pop rivets rather than spot-welded as it should have been. In addition, the portion of the manufacturer's identification number, which indicates the type of vehicle to which it is attached, did not match the actual model of the car. These circumstances indicated to the officers that the car's identification number had been altered.
At this point, the officers impounded the car and had it towed to a garage. There the hidden, or confidential, identification number of the vehicle was located. A check of this number through the police computer revealed that the automobile had indeed been stolen.
Appellant argues that any evidence derived from the impoundment of the car should have been suppressed because no search warrant was obtained. We do not agree.
The evidence of tampering with the car's identification plate, which was obtained with appellant's consent, was clearly sufficient to establish probable cause for the officers to believe that the car had been stolen. In State v. Parnell, 221 So.2d 129, 131 (Fla.1969), Justice Roberts, speaking for the court, said:
It is well settled that when an officer, while engaged in performing his lawful duties, observes contraband items or goods that he has probable cause to believe are stolen, such goods may be seized without a search warrant and are admissible in evidence.
See also State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bouie v. State
...of a second degree misdemeanor is six months. Section 775.082(4)(b) and Section 948.04(1), Florida Statutes (1977); Alderman v. State, 356 So.2d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); McNulty v. State, 339 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Watts v. State, 328 So.2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Neither in Alderma......
-
Purvis v. Lindsey ex rel. State, 91-2531
...for more than six months for a second degree misdemeanor which is punishable by a maximum term of sixty days. See Alderman v. State, 356 So.2d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Bouie v. State, 360 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). See also Holloway v. State, 393 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Corraliza ......
-
Bell v. State, 85-734
...find that the court erred in placing appellant on two years' probation for the commission of two misdemeanors. Alderman v. State, 356 So.2d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The judgments and sentences are affirmed, except that the periods of probation for the misdemeanors are limited to six SCHEB, J......
-
Corraliza v. State, 79-1355
...term for a second degree misdemeanor which is six months. Rose v. State, 369 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Alderman v. State, 356 So.2d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); § 948.04(1), Fla.Stat. (1979). The trial court may upon remand correct the sentence on the petit theft conviction in circuit court......