Chesnut v. State
| Decision Date | 08 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 59345,59345 |
| Citation | 404 So.2d 1064 |
| Parties | Michael CHESNUT, et al., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
William C. Owen, Jr. of Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, Hazouri & Roth, West Palm Beach, Marsha Madorsky, Miami, and Sandstrom & Haddad, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
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 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)), and the District Court of Appeal, Second District (Beasley v. State, 382 So.2d 47 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const.
Petitioners were the only persons aboard a boat to which an auxiliary coast guard craft gave tow. On the way to port, the captain of the towing vessel radioed the Martin County Sheriff's Department and requested that officers meet the boats at the docks, as he had certain suspicions regarding the towed boat.
Upon arrival at port, petitioners began refueling their boat and the coast guard captain conferred with the waiting deputies regarding his suspicions. According to the deputies' testimony, they then approached petitioners' craft and, upon requesting permission to board, were told to "be my guest". As one of the officers approached the boat's cabin, the windows of which were taped over and the door of which was wired shut, he was told "You don't have to look it's loaded." The officer then opened the cabin, which was filled with marijuana.
Before their trial on charges of possessing over 100 pounds of cannabis, petitioners filed a motion to suppress evidence, which the trial court denied. They were then tried before a jury, found guilty of the charges, and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment.
On appeal, the fourth district court affirmed petitioners' convictions, noting first, that petitioners gave their consent to the search and second, that even had no consent been given, probable cause existed to search the boat and exigent circumstances justified the failure to obtain a warrant. Petitioners argue that even if the statement "be my guest" constituted consent to board the boat, the subsequent statement, "You don't have to look, it's loaded", was not consent but, rather, was a specific refusal of permission to search the cabin.
We need not address the issues, raised by petitioners, of whether there was probable cause to board the boat and whether there were exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search, as the matter can be resolved on the basis of the consent given the deputies to search the boat. The trial court, after considering the relevant circumstances, found that petitioners consented to the search. Such finding was within that court's domain, for, as the United States Supreme Court has observed:
(T)he question of whether a consent to search was in fact "voluntary" or was the product of duress or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzalez v. State
...36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)). The trial court's finding will not be overturned if there is sufficient evidence to support it. Chesnut v. State, 404 So.2d 1064, 1065 (Fla.1981). “ ‘[W]here the validity of a search rests on consent, the State has the burden of proving that the necessary consent was......
-
Preston v. State
...of all the circumstances. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2047, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Chesnut v. State, 404 So.2d 1064, 1065 (Fla.1981). We find the record was sufficient for the trial court to conclude that Mrs. Preston's consent was Finally, appellant argues ......
-
Younger v. State, 82-248
...to be determined by the trial judge and his finding will not be overturned if there is sufficient evidence to support it. Chesnut v. State, 404 So.2d 1064 (Fla.1981). See also Martin v. State, 411 So.2d 169 In the instant case, there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's concl......
-
Alzate v. State, 84-404
...issues adversely to the defendant. Credibility determinations made by a trial court will not be disturbed on appeal. See Chesnut v. State, 404 So.2d 1064 (Fla.1981); State v. Battleman, 374 So.2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA The trial court properly considered the totality of the circumstances in light......