Chesnut v. State, s. 78-931
| Decision Date | 30 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | 78-932,Nos. 78-931,s. 78-931 |
| Citation | 382 So.2d 1349 |
| Parties | Michael CHESNUT and Stephen J. Calamia, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William C. Owen, Jr. of Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, Hazouri & Roth, P. A., West Palm Beach, and Marsha G. Madorsky of Sandstrom & Haddad, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction of possession of cannabis in excess of one hundred pounds. Four judicial acts are urged as error, two of which merit consideration.
In response to a call from a charter boat captain, two Martin County Sheriff's deputies were dispatched to the Manatee Boat Dock. There they observed appellants' vessel in tow behind the charter boat. A search of the vessel revealed in excess of one hundred pounds of cannabis in the cabin whereupon appellants were arrested and, in due course, tried, convicted and sentenced for a second degree felony.
Appellants moved to suppress the evidence resulting from the warrantless search, which motion was denied. We affirm that denial. While the facts are somewhat in dispute, there was credible testimony to the effect that, in response to one deputy's request for permission to come aboard, one of the appellants replied: "Be my guest." When the deputy had boarded the vessel and moved toward the cabin, one of the appellants made the statement: "You don't have to look, it's loaded." Under these circumstances we find that there was consent to board and search the vessel. Even if no consent had been given, however, probable cause existed to search and exigent circumstances relieved the deputies from the requirement of obtaining a search warrant. Probable cause was established by the following facts: (1) the vessel ran out of fuel seventeen miles out at sea where appellants said they had been fishing but the vessel was not rigged for fishing; (2) the bow of the boat rode low in the water whereas it is customary in this type of vessel for the bow to ride high and the stern low; (3) all of the cabin windows were covered with masking tape; (4) appellants were unable to produce the vessel's registration papers; (5) during a rainstorm while the vessel was in tow appellants did not enter the cabin to avoid the rain; and finally, (6) one of the deputies testified that he smelled marijuana as he was standing near the vessel.
Exigent circumstances consisted of the fact that this was a sea-going vessel, obviously mobile, and undergoing a refueling operation....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. State
...a second-degree felony. Respondent's argument is supported by decisions from the Fourth District Court of Appeal. See Chesnut v. State, 382 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); and State v. Brady, 379 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 4th DCA We agree with respondent's contention that section 893.13, Florida Sta......
-
State v. Francoeur
...or boat is less than that of a private dwelling and therefore is more open to legitimate governmental intrusion." In Chestnut v. State, 382 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), the court upheld the search of a "seagoing vessel" under the "exigent circumstances" doctrine. We see no reason for app......
-
Chesnut v. State
...CURIAM. By petition for certiorari, we have for review a decision by the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (Chesnut v. State, 382 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)), which directly conflicts with decisions of the District Court of Appeal, First District (Aylin v. State, 362 So.2d 435 (......
-
LaPointe Outdoor Advertising v. Florida Dept. of Transp.
... ... The First District Court of Appeal, in Brazil v. Division of Administration, State Department of Transportation, 347 So.2d 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), has held to the contrary. We have ... ...