Roberts v. State
| Decision Date | 30 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1985,89-1985 |
| Citation | 566 So.2d 848 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2181 Scott Thomas ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mark D. Shelnutt, Ocala, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Judy Taylor Rush, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Scott Thomas Roberts appeals from an order denying his motion to suppress certain physical evidence after his plea of no contest to possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Although in his notice of appeal the defendant seeks to appeal from a nonappealable prejudgment order denying a motion to suppress, it is clear from the record that appellant is seeking review of the final judgment and sentence resulting from his no contest plea. 1 Upon examination of the record on appeal and the supplemental transcript, however, we find the record insufficient to warrant a reversal of the trial court.
On April 19, 1989, two plainclothes police officers were patrolling motel parking lots in an unmarked car to check for vehicle burglaries. The officers observed appellant's automobile parked with the windows down and the T-tops removed. Two people were in the front seat bent over, and two people were in the back seat. One of the officers approached the driver to obtain identification. The second officer approached the passenger side of the car and shined his flashlight inside. He observed a mirror with white powder on the floorboard of the passenger side beneath appellant's feet. The officer requested that the appellant hand him the mirror. The residue of the powder tested positive for cocaine.
Police officers can initiate brief encounters with a citizen without creating a stop. Lightbourne v. State, 438 So.2d 380 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1330, 79 L.Ed.2d 725 (1984); State v. Smith, 477 So.2d 658 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Here the officers approached a parked car in a parking lot available to the public. We do not find that the actions of the police officers in this case rose to the level of an investigatory detention prior to the viewing of the cocaine. The officer observed the cocaine in plain view before any arrest or seizure occurred.
It is well established that the use of a flashlight to illuminate the interior of a vehicle does not violate Fourth Amendment rights, even though an officer may specifically be looking at an area of suspicious activity. State v. Billingsly, 542 So.2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); State v. Ecker, 550 So.2d 545 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1989). The appellant had no legitimate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. State
...officer went to the front area or basin area of the restroom facility and within 1 minute the Defendant left.6 Compare Roberts v. State, 566 So.2d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).7 Caso v. State, 524 So.2d 422 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 870, 109 S.Ct. 178, 102 L.Ed.2d 147 (1988).8 See State......
-
State v. Green, 2D05-849.
...of the flashlight into the vehicle was not a search and thus did not implicate Fourth Amendment protections. See Roberts v. State, 566 So.2d 848 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); State v. Billingsly, 542 So.2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (citing Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (......
-
State v. Thornton
...substance were in open view as a result of the deputy's use of a flashlight raises no constitutional concerns. See Roberts v. State , 566 So. 2d 848, 850 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) ("It is well established that the use of a flashlight to illuminate the interior of a vehicle does not violate Fourth......
-
Robinson v. State
...where the officer is entitled to be and the officer is on heightened vigilance to see the contraband. See, e.g., Roberts v. State, 566 So.2d 848, 850 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (noting that during a consensual encounter, “the use of a flashlight to illuminate the interior of a vehicle does not vio......