Rada v. State, 88-2942
| Decision Date | 13 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2942,88-2942 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1439 Jorge RADA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carl L. Masztal, Miami, and Rhonda Anne Anderson, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before NESBITT, FERGUSON and LEVY, JJ.
The Defendant, Jorge Rada, was convicted of trafficking in cocaine in violation of Section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1987), and attempted bail-jumping in violation of Sections 777.04 and 843.15, Florida Statutes (1987). He was sentenced to fifteen years for trafficking and fined $262,500. We affirm as to the trafficking conviction and reverse as to the attempted bail-jumping conviction.
The facts relating to the trafficking conviction are as follows. Four police officers had been conducting surveillance at a shopping center parking lot, when their attention was drawn to a particular car because it remained in the lot for ten minutes and the passengers did not exit. The Defendant subsequently approached the car, shook hands with the driver, and entered the passenger side of the car. The car then slowly drove out of the parking lot, went around the block, and re-entered the parking lot. The officers, who were approximately 200 feet away from the car, observed the Defendant get out of the car carrying a black opaque plastic shopping bag rolled into a rectangular shape. As the car left the parking lot, the Defendant, nervously looking around, walked toward and entered another car in the lot containing a male driver.
At this point, two officers approached this second car, identified themselves, informed the driver that they were conducting a narcotics investigation, and stated that they suspected that the Defendant and the driver were carrying narcotics. One of the officers asked the driver for his consent to search the car, advising him that he did not have to talk and that he was free to leave. The driver replied: "Fine, I have nothing to hide, you may search the car." At this point, both the driver and the defendant voluntarily exited the car. One of the officers then removed the black bag from the floorboard behind the passenger's seat of the car. He opened the bag and observed a white plastic bag inside which contained two green, rectangular kilo packages of the kind normally used to wrap cocaine. The officer observed that the packages smelled like cocaine. These packages were then opened, tested positive as cocaine, and the Defendant and the driver were arrested. The Defendant did not object to the search at anytime.
We find that the trial court properly denied the Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. The initial encounter was clearly consensual, and thus did not require the existence of a prior founded suspicion of unlawful activity on the part of the officers. See Jacobson v. State, 476 So.2d 1282 (Fla.1985); Palmer v. State, 467 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Neither the Defendant nor the driver were restrained, and both were specifically advised that they were free to leave. The encounter occurred outdoors in a public shopping center, and the officers did not display any weapons and were not in uniform.
It is also clear that the consent to search the car obtained from the driver was valid, because the driver of a jointly occupied car possesses the authority to consent to a search of that car on behalf of all passengers. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); United States v. Anderson, 859 F.2d 1171 (3d Cir.1989). The search conducted by the officers did not exceed the scope of the consent. Once the officer opened the black bag, observed the kilo packages, and detected the odor of cocaine, he had probable cause to open the kilo package and test it. See Henderson v. State, 535 So.2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Palmer v. State, 467 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). This evidence, properly introduced, is more than sufficient to sustain the trafficking conviction.
However, we find that the conviction for attempted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Walton
...of a car can validly authorize the police to search the car, whether or not there are other passengers in the car. Rada v. State, 544 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In United States v. Morales, 861 F.2d 396 (3d Cir.1988), the passenger was actually the lessee of the car, but he stood silent......
-
State v. Dreps
...L.Ed.2d 1026 (speeding stop, warning ticket issued and license returned, then consent to search sought and received); Rada v. State, 544 So.2d 1112 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1989) (roadblock stop, officer advised defendant he was free to leave, then consent to search sought and received); State v. C......
-
State v. Endo, 89-536
...consent was not obtained in the present case, the order under review is affirmed. * Jimeno has overruled sub silentio Rada v. State, 544 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (consent to search of vehicle included opening of closed plastic ...