Godbee v. State
| Decision Date | 25 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 69--11,69--11 |
| Citation | 224 So.2d 441 |
| Parties | Felda Douglas GODBEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lee R. Horton, Public Defender, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Public Defender, Winter Haven, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
Appellant directly appeals his conviction on one count of a two-count information charging possession and concealment of stolen property in violation of § 811.16, F.S.A. He raises two points on appeal, the first of which challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence which he alleges was seized pursuant to an unlawful search. His second ground on appeal alleges insufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict of guilt. We reject both contentions.
Appellant's first contention presents a case of initial impression in Florida in that it squarely raises for the first time whether a search may be made, without a warrant, for the sole purpose of making an 'inventory' of the contents of an automobile in the lawful possession of police officers after the owner thereof has been lawfully placed under arrest, and when such search is not incidental to the arrest. 1 The evidence before the trial judge, on the motion to suppress heard prior to the commencement of the trial, revealed that two deputy sheriffs were at a certain location investigating a homicide. One of the officers had in his possession a warrant for the arrest of appellant on worthless check charges. While they were in the course of their investigation of the homicide, appellant drove up in his car and parked it illegally on the sidewalk near where the officers were standing. He got out of the car and locked it. The deputy with the warrant recognized appellant as the fugitive named in the warrant, summoned him and executed the warrant by placing appellant under arrest. Appellant then requested that he be permitted to go into a nearby store to make a phone call, and the officers allowed him to do so. When he failed to return the deputies themselves went into the store and discovered that he had absconded.
The officers testified that since the car was illegally parked and locked, and because the appellant had obviously fled, they caused the car to be hauled to a privately owned garage which was frequently used by the police for storage of automobiles in police custody. They further testified that it was routine procedure in the Polk County Sheriff's office to inventory personal property found in motor vehicles which were necessarily in the custody of the sheriff when the owner thereof has been arrested, or when it is necessary to confiscate or otherwise take into possession such motor vehicle. One deputy testified that the inventory is made '* * * for our benefit as well as theirs * * *'.
Because they were busy in the homicide investigation, the officers did not get around to checking appellant's car until two days later. On this occasion it was necessary to force open the car, and upon taking an 'inventory' the officers found guns, knives and other assorted weaponry, most of which had price tags on them indicating they had theretofore been the property of certain sporting goods merchants. It was subsequently determined that the articles had been stolen; and one of the guns was the subject matter of count two of the information herein on which appellant was convicted.
Appellant principally argues that a search of a motor vehicle without a warrant is authorized under only two circumstances: where the search is conducted incidental to a lawful arrest, or secondly, where it is conducted upon probable cause that a crime is then and there being committed. Appellant's contention overlooks the other permissible searches without a warrant, i.e. a 'consent' search, a search of abandoned property and a search to prevent the further perpetration of a non-possessory class of crime of which there is probable cause to believe is in process. But in any case, the search herein does not fall within any of these categories, thus the novel question here arises. The leading case on the point...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. State
...scope of a search beneath the floor mat of an impounded car beyond that required to safeguard any valuables in the car. Godbee v. State, 224 So.2d 441 (Fla.2d DCA 1969), recognized that the purpose of impounding the car and inventorying its contents was to preserve them and protect the poli......
-
South Dakota v. Opperman
...(1973); State v. All, 17 N.C.App. 284, 193 S.E.2d 770, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 866, 94 S.Ct. 51, 38 L.Ed.2d 85 (1973); Godbee v. State, 224 So.2d 441 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1969). Even the seminal state decision relied on by the South Dakota Supreme Court in reaching the contrary result, Mozzetti ......
-
State v. Briggs
...State v. All, 17 N. C. App. 284, 193 S. E. 2d 770, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 866 [94 S.Ct. 51, 38 L.Ed.2d 85] (1973) ; Godbee v. State, 224 So. 2d 441 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969). Even the seminal state decision relied on by the South Dakota Supreme Court in reaching the contrary result, Mozzet......
-
Robinson v. State, 53257
...but under the facts and circumstances of this case a search without a search warrant was reasonable. * * * " See also Godbee v. State, 224 So.2d 441 (Fla.App.1969), a well-reasoned opinion from which we quote with approval the " * * * The reasonableness of any search without a warrant is me......