Loftis v. State, SS-360
| Decision Date | 07 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. SS-360,SS-360 |
| Citation | 391 So.2d 219 |
| Parties | Cecil L. LOFTIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Hilliard Moldof of Bofshever, Redlich & Gutter, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Loftis appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana urging, among other things, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress physical evidence. Because we reverse on this point, we do not decide the other issues raised by appellant.
Loftis, driving a pick-up with a topper, bypassed an agricultural inspection station and was stopped by Inspector Hubbard about three miles into Georgia. According to Hubbard, when he requested access to the truck Loftis responded that he did not have the key but if he had one Hubbard could look. Hubbard then inserted his finger or hand into a crack between the closed rear door and the frame and "kind of tugged on it and the door opened." At this time, he observed a piece of plywood covered by blankets or a sleeping bag and a package which appeared to be wrapped in opaque plastic. He requested that Loftis return to the station with him and testified that Loftis was not free to leave and that he would have called for assistance from the Georgia authorities if Loftis had tried to do so.
Back at the station, Loftis was formerly arrested for failing to stop at the inspection station and Hubbard informed Loftis he needed to look in the truck again. Loftis followed Hubbard out to the truck and Hubbard either opened both the top and bottom rear doors or Hubbard opened one and Loftis the other. Without requesting further consent, Hubbard began to inspect the contents of the truck. He removed the plastic wrapped package, cut a hole in it and found marijuana. According to Hubbard, this package was wrapped in plastic and taped. After finding the marijuana, Hubbard called the sheriff who arrested Loftis for possession of marijuana.
On these facts, we cannot conclude that Loftis freely and voluntarily consented to the search of the truck or its contents. Taking Hubbard's testimony as true, Loftis' statement that if he had a key Hubbard could look into the vehicle cannot be interpreted as a waiver of his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches. As we stated in Powell v. State, 332 So.2d 105, 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) for a person ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wells
...3d DCA 1982) (permission to go aboard boat did not give consent to open hidden compartments and containers therein); Loftis v. State, 391 So.2d 219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (defendant's cooperation in opening truck did not give agricultural inspector consent to remove and open taped package), re......
-
Rosell v. State, AN-301
...authority, the search will not be upheld. This rule is applicable to warrantless searches by agricultural inspectors. See Loftis v. State, 391 So.2d 219 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 399 So.2d 1146 (Fla.1981); Nelson v. State, 376 So.2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Gonterman v. State, 358 So.2d ......
-
Peterson v. State
...gave the officers permission to manipulate, or "fiddle with" the lock on the briefcase, unlike the situation in Loftis v. State, 391 So.2d 219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. denied, 399 So.2d 1146 (Fla.1981), as cited by appellant for support. In Loftis, appellant responded to an inspector's req......
- State v. Loftis