State v. Hall, 78-407
Decision Date | 23 October 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 78-407,78-407 |
Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Wayne Allen HALL, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Janet Reno, State's Atty., and Theda James, Asst. State's Atty., for appellant.
Angus M. Stephens, Jr., Leonard R. McMillen, Coral Gables, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, KEHOE and SCHWARTZ, JJ.
This is an appeal by the State of an order suppressing evidence seized by a police officer from the defendant's automobile at the time of the defendant's arrest for a traffic violation. We reverse upon a holding that the "plain view" doctrine is applicable. See Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968); State v. Ashby, 245 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971); and Jester v. State, 339 So.2d 242 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).
The trial court, having taken testimony, made the following findings of fact:
We think that the findings made by the trial judge must be supplemented by the following uncontroverted facts which appear in the record. The officer testified at the hearing that he had observed the defendant twice drive over the dividing line dividing the lanes going in the same direction and observed the defendant twice drive over into the lane of oncoming traffic. This erratic driving pattern constituted a violation of the state statutes and the state's driving regulations. Further this pattern of erratic driving was a proper matter for the police officer's concern because it demonstrated to him that the defendant did not have his vehicle under control. The officer stated that his purpose in making the stop was to attempt to determine the reason for the defendant's inability to control his vehicle. Proceeding from this legitimate concern for the safety of both the public and the defendant, the officer properly stopped the defendant. Undoubtedly, one of his legitimate concerns may well have been that the defendant was under the influence of either alcohol or drugs. Having thus made a legitimate stop, the officer was in a place where he had a right to be. Therefore, the officer was certainly within his rights to use his flashlight to examine the area in plain view immediately around himself and around the defendant, not only for his own safety, but also pursuant to his right to observe that which was plainly visible. The fact that the officer used a flashlight is of no significance, as this court held in State v. Roker, 290 So.2d 525 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).
The trial court made his determination that the search was illegal, apparently 1 upon the following conclusions of law which he set out in the order granting the motion to suppress:
There is no contention on this appeal, nor would the record support such a holding, that the stop for the traffic violation was a pretext stop.
This court has recently approved and applied a set of tests advanced by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2 necessary to support a seizure of contraband in plain view. See State v. Hughes, 375 So.2d 615 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). The tests, as applied to the facts of the present case are:
(1) Was the officer lawfully where he had a right to be?
(2) Was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Melendez
...the 53 white pills which were spread throughout the automobile. State v. Howell, 384 So.2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); State v. Hall, 376 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); State v. Ruiz, 360 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Tamburro v. State, 343 So.2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). In this situation, it i......
-
Cobb v. State
...Thomas and that it was therefore properly subject to the warrantless seizure which followed. In two recent decisions, State v. Hall, 376 So.2d 276 (Fla.3d DCA 1979) and State v. Hughes, 375 So.2d 615 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), this court has adopted and applied a series of standards to determine wh......
-
State v. Ellison, 83-275
...Derrickson v. State, 399 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); State v. Melendez, 392 So.2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Hall, 376 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 637 Thus the plain view doctrine permits a law enforcement officer to seize incriminating evidence or contra......
-
State v. Barbara Nigro
...United States v. Polk (1970), 433 F. 2d 644; State ex rel. Berger v. Cantor (1971), 13 Ariz. App. 555, 479 P. 2d 432; State v. Hall (Fla. App. 1979), 376 So. 2d 276; People v. Lott (1975), 33 Ill. App. 3d 779, 338 2d 434; Alcorn v. State (Ind. 1970), 265 N.E. 2d 413; State v. Blevins (1969)......