Granville v. State
Decision Date | 29 July 1977 |
Docket Number | Nos. 77-104 and 77-105,s. 77-104 and 77-105 |
Citation | 348 So.2d 641 |
Parties | Charles GRANVILLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Robert H. Grizzard, II, Asst. Public Defender, and Lawrence D. Shearer, Legal Intern, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant/defendant, Charles Granville, challenges the legality of a search of the automobile he was driving. We agree that the search was improper and that impoundment was unnecessary, and we reverse.
Prior to the incident which is the subject matter of this appeal, appellant had been identified as a possible suspect in the commission of a recent robbery. While on their way to appellant's residence to question him, Officers Meredith and Sumner observed him driving along a street a few blocks from his home and followed him in their patrol car.
Upon reaching his destination, appellant pulled into the private driveway of a friend's residence, got out of the automobile, and walked toward the police cruiser which had pulled up next to the curb. Meredith asked to see appellant's driver's license and after appellant stated that he did not have one, Meredith frisked him. As he was doing so, Sumner told him that appellant's license was suspended and ordered Meredith to arrest appellant. Meredith arrested him, turned appellant over to Sumner, and searched the automobile. He found a paper bag containing the wallet of the robbery victim and a woman's purse. Appellant was then arrested for robbery and handcuffed.
At that point, appellant requested that the car not be impounded, but rather that the police return it to the owner, who lived only two blocks away. The police nevertheless continued the search and impounded the vehicle.
There is no evidence to suggest, nor does the state argue, that the warrantless search made in this case was made for any reason other than to inventory the contents of the vehicle. The search was not incident to appellant's arrest since appellant was in police custody and at a safe distance from the car at the time the search was made. The police did not have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband or evidence of a crime. There could have been no fruits of the offense for which appellant was arrested, that is driving without a valid driver's license. A suspicion that appellant may have committed the robbery because he fit the general BOLO description of the robber was insufficient basis for the search. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925).
Before an inventory search of a motor vehicle may be conducted there must be some necessity for impounding it. Altman v. State, 335 So.2d 626 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). When a vehicle is legally parked some justification for impoundment other than the fact that it is unattended must be shown. G. B. v. State, 339 So.2d 696 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). Here there was no justification for impounding the car. The vehicle was not abandoned or illegally parked, as in Godbee v. State, 224 So.2d 441 (Fla.2d DCA 1969); nor would it otherwise have had to be left on the highway, as in Urquhart v. State, 261 So.2d 535 (Fla.2d DCA 1971). The car was parked in the driveway of a private residence, the owner of which was a friend of appellant, and, unlike the situation in Cash v. State, 275 So.2d 605 (Fla.1st DCA 1973), the owner of the property on which the vehicle was parked had not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Slockbower
...to suppression. See State v. McDaniel, supra, 156 N.J.Super. at 358, 359; Dixon v. State, supra; Pigford v. United States, supra; Granville v. State, supra; State v. Jewell, supra; United States v. Edwards, supra; And United States v. Hellman, The conclusions thus arrived at require a rever......
-
State v. Callaway, 80-1333-CR
...in State v. Goodrich, 256 N.W.2d 506 (Minn.1977), the defendant arranged to have his brother pick up the car. In Granville v. State, 348 So.2d 641 (Fla.App.1977), the car could have been left where it was parked in a friend's driveway and in People v. Miller, 7 Cal.3d 219, 101 Cal.Rptr. 860......
-
People v. Krezen
...State v. Osbon, 426 So.2d 323 (La.App, 1983) (impoundment unreasonable where vehicle parked in shopping center lot); Granville v. State, 348 So.2d 641 (Fla.App, 1977) (improper impoundment where vehicle parked in friend's driveway and defendant was arrested at a safe distance from the vehic......
-
State v. McDaniel
...State v. Goodrich, Minn., 256 N.W.2d 506, 510 (Sup.Ct.1977). Tolbert v. State, 348 So.2d 623 (Fla.App.Ct.1977); Granville v. State, 348 So.2d 641 (Fla.App.Ct.1977); State v. Hardman, 17 Wash.App. 910, 567 P.2d 238 (App.Ct.1977); State v. Bales, 15 Wash.App. 834, 552 P.2d 688 (App.Ct.1976); ......