Slone v. State

• Decision Date: 04 May 2005
• Docket Number: No. 4D04-494.,4D04-494.
• Citation: 902 So.2d 852
• Parties: William SLONE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

902 So.2d 852

William SLONE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D04-494.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 4, 2005.

Rehearing Denied June 14, 2005.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and John M. Conway, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and August A. Bonavita, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

KLEIN, J.

The issue in this case is whether the police can search an arrestee's nearby car when they do not know if he had just left the vehicle. In Thomas v. State, 761 So.2d 1010 (Fla.1999), the Florida Supreme Court held that where a person arrested outside of a vehicle had not exited the vehicle at the request of law enforcement, and neither officer safety nor preservation of evidence was involved, a search violated the Fourth Amendment. Subsequently, Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 124 S.Ct. 2127, 158 L.Ed.2d 905 (2004), overruled Thomas, clarifying that the leaving of the vehicle does not have to be at the request of law enforcement. The search in this case was illegal under either decision, and the drugs found in appellant's car should have been suppressed.

The facts leading up to the arrest began when a detective was advised by appellant's roommate that appellant was illegally obtaining drugs at a pharmacy. The detective confirmed that appellant had illegally filled a prescription for Percocet that belonged to his roommate and that appellant drove a white Ford Explorer.

The pharmacy personnel agreed to inform detectives when appellant next left a prescription to be filled. Eight days later another detective working on the case was paged about appellant. The detective drove to the area, but did not observe appellant or the Explorer and left. In the meantime, a second detective had arrived and observed appellant ten to twelve feet from the Explorer. It was parked in a shopping center on the other side of U.S. 1, across from the pharmacy, and in front of a restaurant owned by appellant's sister. He called in the tag and confirmed that the Explorer belonged to appellant. He then approached appellant, handcuffed him, and searched him and then the Explorer. Both searches revealed illegal drugs.

When asked why he had searched the Explorer, the detective explained that he was seizing it because it had been used in the commission of the felony committed when appellant had picked up his roommate's Percocet at Walgreens. There was no evidence, however, as to whether appellant had just gotten out of the Explorer.

Appellant moved to suppress both the drugs found on his person and the drugs found in his vehicle, but his motion was denied as to both searches. He entered a plea to two counts of possession, reserving the right to appeal. We conclude that there was probable cause to search him and affirm that issue without further discussion.

As to the vehicle search, the most recent relevant opinion from the Florida Supreme Court is Thomas. There the defendant had driven up to a house in which the police were already present and got out of his vehicle. An officer who had observed him asked for his driver's license and discovered an outstanding warrant for a probation violation. The officer then searched defendant's vehicle and found drugs. Our supreme court concluded that, where the defendant had not exited his vehicle at the request of an officer, and there was no evidence that the officer's safety was in danger or the preservation of evidence was in jeopardy, the vehicle search violated the Fourth Amendment. The Thomas court reached this result by construing Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969),New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), and Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 119 S.Ct. 484, 142 L.Ed.2d 492 (1998).

After Thomas, in Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 124 S.Ct. 2127, 158 L.Ed.2d 905 (2004), the Supreme Court clarified those decisions and held that it did not matter if...