Jones v. State, 76--719
| Decision Date | 22 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--719,76--719 |
| Citation | 345 So.2d 809 |
| Parties | Tyrone Bernard JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David M. Hammond, of Meyers, Mooney & Adler, Orlando, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a denial of a Motion to Suppress Evidence and a Judgment of conviction.
At 4:00 P.M. the Appellant was in his car following two of his friends in another car on their way to the friends' house. The police had warrants for the arrest of Appellant for driver license violations and stopped the Appellant in order to arrest him in accordance with those warrants. Upon the Appellant being stopped he was ordered from his car, handcuffed and placed in the police car. In the meantime the Appellant's friend saw the police stop the Appellant, turned her car around and drove back to the scene of the arrest. Both the Appellant and his friends requested the police to release the car to one of the friends, at least one of whom was a licensed driver. Instead the police proceeded to seize the car and search it without a search warrant or the valid consent of the Appellant. Probable cause to search was non-existent.
The State urges the search was not a search but an inventory subsequent to an impounding of the car. The officer testified it is routine procedure to conduct an inventory of the contents of a car after its driver is arrested. The officers also testified that the inventory had already begun when the Appellant and friends asked that the car be released to one of the friends.
During the search of the car, to inventory the contents, the officers opened the trunk and found a suitcase laying underneath a garment bag. There was also a toolbox in the trunk. In order to complete their inventory the officers obtained from the Appellant's pocket a key which fit the locked toolbox. They opened it. They also opened the suitcase and found an envelope inside. They opened the envelope and found what ultimately turned out to be cocaine.
The question is whether or not the search and seizure was a valid exercise of police power not in contravention of Appellant's rights under Article, I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
There is no question that an inventory is a search. State v. Jenkins, 319 So.2d 91 (Fla.4th DCA 1975). Nor is there any question that inventory searches are proper to protect the arrestee's property from theft and the police from false claims. Godbee v. State, 224 So.2d 441 (Fla.2d DCA 1969).
But there is a limit to the right of the police to dig into the affairs of an arrestee and the limit was breached here. As was stated in Jenkins, supra, the totality of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. State
...of the alternatives available to him instead of impoundment. Session v. State, 353 So.2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Jones v. State, 345 So.2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); State v. Jenkins, 319 So.2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const. We resolve the conflic......
-
State v. Goff
...Cal.Rptr. 224 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 887, 100 S.Ct. 181, 62 L.Ed.2d 117; State v. Gwinn, 301 A.2d 291 (Del.1972); Jones v. State, 345 So.2d 809 (Fla.App.1977); People v. Grana, 185 Colo. 126, 527 P.2d 543 (1974); State v. Parker, 153 N.J.Super. 481, 380 A.2d 291 (1977); State v. Dow......
-
People v. Krezen
...336 So.2d 687 (Fla.App, 1976); State v. Gaut, 357 So.2d 513 (La, 1978); Tolbert v. State, 348 So.2d 623 (Fla.App, 1977); Jones v. State, 345 So.2d 809 (Fla.App, 1977).A few courts have found impoundment proper where there is a danger of vandalism or theft because of valuables visible in a v......
-
Sommer v. State
...upheld, it could hardly be upheld upon the impoundment and inventory basis because Miller would not permit it. See also Jones v. State, 345 So.2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). An appellate court should not overturn an order denying the suppression of evidence if any legal basis to sustain the tr......