Moreland v. State, 88-03203
| Decision Date | 20 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-03203,88-03203 |
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2487,552 So.2d 937 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2487 Edward MORELAND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Geoffrey C. Fleck, of Friend & Fleck, South Miami, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Stephen A. Baker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Defendant appeals from his convictions and sentences for trafficking in cocaine and possession of over twenty grams of marijuana. He contends that the trial court erred in failing to suppress cocaine and marijuana found during a warrantless search of his car after it was stopped by police officers. We affirm.
We do not agree with defendant's argument that the stop was an invalid pretextual stop. While there was evidence indicating invalid subjective pretextual motives of the officers, there was also evidence of valid objective bases for the stop. The evidence was that defendant's car was clocked by one of the officers at 62 m.p.h. in a 55 m.p.h. zone and was weaving on the road, having at one point crossed the outer edge of the road. Prior to the search which produced the drugs, one of the officers was writing out a warning ticket for the weaving and was planning to warn defendant about his speeding. Each officer testified that he would have stopped any driver under the circumstances. Under these facts the stop was valid because it was shown that "a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle absent an additional invalid purpose." Kehoe v. State, 521 So.2d 1094, 1097 (Fla.1988). See also Clemons v. State, 533 So.2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
Nor do we agree with defendant's argument that his consent for the officers to search the inside of the car was not established to have been voluntary. The officer's request for the consent ("Do you mind if I look inside your car?") might have produced an answer which would not have justified the search if defendant had simply responded, "Yes." See Major v. State, 389 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Robinson v. State, 388 So.2d 286, 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). But there was evidence that defendant actually responded, "Yeah, go ahead."
Yet we conclude, contrary to the state's argument, that the consent did not authorize the search which produced the drugs. The drugs were found (a) by opening a closed box found in the trunk of the car which the officers searched without any further consent and to which the officers gained access with a key removed from the car's ignition without defendant's consent, and (b) by forcing open a locked bag found inside the car. Defendant's consent to the search of the inside of the car did not authorize the search of the trunk, of the box found therein, and of the locked bag. State v. Abrams, 548 So.2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
We also do not agree with the state's argument to the effect that the search was valid even without defendant's consent because one of the officers had observed in plain view inside a box which was affixed to the car on the passenger side evidence of another crime, i.e., a pistol, the serial numbers of which had been obliterated. See section 790.27, Florida Statutes (1987). First, the officer who conducted the search testified that that pistol had been "a concealed weapon." While in response to additional leading questions there was other testimony from the same officer to the effect that the pistol could have been seen by looking down into the box, apparently because there was no cover on it, we cannot conclude that the state carried the requisite burden of showing that the pistol was in plain view. There was no testimony that the officer had happened to have looked down into the box and viewed the pistol before having reached into the box and securing the pistol. See Perez v. State, 521 So.2d 262, 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (). Also, there was no testimony that prior to securing the pistol the officer could, or did, see in plain view that the serial number had been obliterated. Perez, 521 So.2d at 264 ().
Nonetheless, we conclude that defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
...suspicion ripened into probable cause to search when the canine unit alerted to the presence of contraband in the van. Moreland v. State, 552 So.2d 937, 939 (Fla.2d DCA 1989), review denied, 562 So.2d 346 (Fla.1990). The officer's resulting discovery of the cocaine in the seat pockets provi......
-
State v. Holland, 94-856
...not on whether a reasonable officer would have made the stop. This court has already rejected such an approach. In Moreland v. State, 552 So.2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), this court We do not agree with the defendant's argument that the stop was an invalid pretextual stop. While there was evid......
-
State v. Gonzalez
...See State v. Wells, 539 So.2d 464 (Fla.), cert. granted, 491 U.S. 903, 109 S.Ct. 3183, 105 L.Ed.2d 692 (1989); Moreland v. State, 552 So.2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); State v. Abrams, 548 So.2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Furthermore, the search was not conducted incident to a lawful arrest, accor......
-
State v. Velez, 94-1063
...65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), review dismissed, 626 So.2d 208 (Fla.1993); State v. Taylor, 557 So.2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Moreland v. State, 552 So.2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), review denied, 562 So.2d 346 (Fla.1990). Although State v. Irvin, 483 So.2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), review denied, 491......
-
The Fourth Amendment, canine olfaction, and vehicle stops: time is of the es'scents'.
...666, 667 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1990); Blackmon, 570 So. 2d at 1076; Williams, 565 So. 2d at 715; Taswell, 560 So. 2d at 257; Moreland v. State, 552 So. 2d 937, 939 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1989); Denton, 524 So. 2d at 498; Cardwell, 482 So. 2d at 515. See also Glinton, 154 F. 3d at 1257; Holloman, 113 F. ......