State v. Flores
Decision Date | 31 December 1974 |
Docket Number | Nos. 74--688,74--689,s. 74--688 |
Citation | 305 So.2d 292 |
Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John C. FLORES, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Philip J. Padovano of Ruiz & Padovano, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
The State appeals two orders granting motions to suppress and further dismissing the informations inasmuch as the State could not proceed to trial without the evidence which was the subject of the motions.
The uncontradicted evidence reflects that the Chief Investigator of the Pinellas County School Security Drug Enforcement Section was at Clearwater High School investigating the illegal use of drugs on the school campus. The officer had under surveillance a school parking lot in which the use of drugs had occurred in the past. At about 9:25 A.M. he walked through the lot looking into the windows of a number of automobiles. He saw through the window of one of these automobiles a marijuana roach in an open ashtray on the dashboard, and on closer observation could see particles and seeds of marijuana on the seat. He waited nearby until the first session of school was dismissed at 12:30 P.M., at which time appellee approached the vehicle, inserted the key in the door and sat behind the wheel. The officer then placed appellee under arrest and advised him of his 'Miranda' rights. Thereafter, appellee told the officer that he had driven the car to school by himself and that he had locked the vehicle before he went into the school. When asked if he had anything in the automobile, he responded that there was a bag of marijuana under the front seat. The marijuana was then seized by the officer.
While there were several other cars in the lot of which the officer was suspicious, it is clear that prior to the time he peered into the appellee's window, he had no reason to suspect that there might be drugs in the car. The trial judge was of the opinion that the blanket searching of motor vehicles parked on the parking lot constituted an unreasonable search and that the seizure of the bag of marijuana under the seat of the car was tainted by the original illegality of the search.
In this appeal, appellee relies largely upon certain comments of Justice Stewart 1 in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 1971, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564, to the effect that a plain view seizure must be inadvertent and made under exigent circumstances. We believe that Coolidge is totally inapplicable, because in the instant case there was no search whatsoever. The comments expressed in Coolidge presuppose that the plain view...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Melendez
...So.2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) cert. denied, 385 So.2d 754 (Fla.1980); Smith v. State, 363 So.2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); State v. Flores, 305 So.2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) cert. denied, 315 So.2d 189 (Fla.1975). Thus, the question is whether Officer Leach was justified in entering the vehicle ......
-
Jones v. State
... ... State v. Flores, Fla.App. 1974, 305 So.2d 292 and § 901.21, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. It is also our view that the reasonableness of the search and seizure after arrest was not affected by the fact that the original stopping of appellant may have been without probable cause. There is no testimony that appellant did ... ...
-
Cobb v. State
...Thomas had been able to see it through an open window from a point outside the vehicle. See State v. Hall, supra; State v. Flores, 305 So.2d 292 (Fla.2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 315 So.2d 189 (Fla.1975). The defendant therefore contends only that she did not have the right to make the "intr......
-
State v. Starkey
...under the Fourth Amendment and involves no legally recognized intrusion. See Adoue v. State, 408 So.2d 567 (Fla.1981); State v. Flores, 305 So.2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 315 So.2d 189 (Fla.1975); and W. LaFave, Search and Seizure, A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, § 2.5(b) (......