Padron v. State
| Decision Date | 26 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 63305,63305 |
| Citation | 449 So.2d 811 |
| Parties | Israel Martin PADRON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Asst. Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Penny H. Brill, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for respondent.
This cause is before the Court on petition for review of the decision of the district court of appeal in State v. Padron, 425 So.2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). We granted review on the jurisdictional ground of conflict of decisions. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
A police officer stopped petitioner Israel Padron after noticing that the vehicle inspection certificate on the car Padron was driving had expired. Upon being stopped Padron got out of the car and stood beside it. The officer soon learned that Padron did not speak English, but only Spanish. The officer had only a limited knowledge of Spanish, so he asked Padron for his "licensia" and his "registracion." Padron could produce no such documents, so the officer arrested him. He handcuffed Padron and placed him securely in the rear seat of his police car.
Then the officer communicated with his headquarters, seeking the assistance of a Spanish-speaking officer. He was told that there was no Spanish-speaking officer available to render assistance at that time. Unable to consult Padron about his preferences regarding the removal of the car, which was standing in a traffic lane, from the roadway, the officer decided to impound the vehicle. He called for a tow truck and began to examine the interior of the car, making an inventory of the items found. Under one of the seats the officer found a cloth or leather bag. When the officer grasped the bag to remove it from the car, he felt something inside it which he believed was a firearm. Opening the bag, the officer found a disassembled sub-machinegun, along with a magazine, silencer, and ammunition, and five plastic bags of marijuana.
Padron was subsequently charged by information with numerous offenses, several of which were based on his possession of the machinegun and marijuana. 1 He filed a motion to exclude these physical items from evidence on the ground that they were obtained by means of an illegal search. The trial judge granted the motion, finding that the arresting officer had failed to follow legal requirements governing the impoundment and inventory search of vehicles as set forth in Miller v. State, 403 So.2d 1307 (Fla.1981). The trial judge also expressed the view that he did not believe the search could be justified as a search incident to arrest. 2 The state appealed the suppression of the physical evidence. 3
On appeal, the district court reversed, holding that the warrantless search of the car petitioner was operating was a reasonable search incident to arrest. 4 The district court reasoned that "the validity of the search as incident to the arrest is unaffected by the fact that the police officers classified their actions as an inventory search." 425 So.2d at 645 (quoting State v. Valdes, 423 So.2d 944, 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)). This reasoning comports with the holding of the United States Supreme Court "that the fact that the officer does not have the state of mind which is hypothecated by the reasons which provide the legal justification for the officer's action does not invalidate the action taken so long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action." Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 138, 98 S.Ct. 1717, 1723, 56 L.Ed.2d 168 (1978). We find no error in the district court's determination that, viewed objectively, the circumstances presented here justified the search of the car as a search incident to arrest. See New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969).
What we have said thus far is sufficient to approve the district court's reversal of the trial judge's suppression order. However, we go further only to suggest that it was unnecessary for the district court to find an alternative ground to justify the search, a ground not heavily relied upon by the state before the trial court and not subjectively relied upon by the officer who searched the car. Such alternative ground was unnecessary, we believe, because the trial judge erred when he ruled that the impoundment and inventory search were improper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hernandez v. State
...So.2d 286, 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (citing Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 98 S.Ct. 1717, 56 L.Ed.2d 168 (1978), and Padron v. State, 449 So.2d 811 (Fla.1984)); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 814, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). "Nor would the legal conclusion of......
-
Brown v. State, 5D08-3196.
...States v. Schecter, 717 F.2d 864, 865 (3d Cir. 1983); United States v. Collins, 668 F.2d 819, 821 (5th Cir. 1982); Padron v. State, 449 So.2d 811, 812 (Fla. 1984); State v. Waller, 918 So.2d 363, 366-67 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); State v. Gilbert, 894 So.2d 1055, 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); State v......
-
White v. State
...was authorized, there is no doubt that the inventory search was appropriate. See Caplan v. State, 531 So.2d 88 (Fla.1988); Padron v. State, 449 So.2d 811 (Fla.1984). OVERTON, J., 1 The following facts are taken from the First District's opinion. White, 680 So.2d at 551-55.2 The dates of the......
-
Rogers v. State
...standard. The focus is neither on an officer's subjective motivation to arrest nor on his erroneous legal conclusions. Padron v. State, 449 So.2d 811 (Fla.1984). Notwithstanding Tam's earlier refusal to consent to a purse search, when probable cause later arose, the purse search in the pres......