State v. Neeley
| Decision Date | 08 September 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-00244,89-00244 |
| Citation | 548 So.2d 1165,14 Fla. L. Weekly 2127 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2127 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Katrina NEELEY, Appellee. |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Barbara B. Briggs, Acting Circuit Judge.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Davis G. Anderson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Harmon J. Karasick of Joseph R. Fritz, P.A., Bradenton, for appellee.
The state appeals a trial court's order granting a motion to suppress cocaine seized from an automobile. We affirm and certify a question to the supreme court.
Katrina Neeley is a codefendant of Michael Abrams, whose case was decided this date by this court. See State v. Abrams, 548 So.2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), for a review of the facts and legal issues involved in both cases.
We affirm the trial court but, as in Abrams, certify the following question of great public importance to the supreme court:
IF A MOTOR VEHICLE IS LAWFULLY STOPPED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE DRIVER CONSENTS TO THE OFFICER LOOKING INSIDE THE VEHICLE, DOES THE CONSENT GIVEN EXTEND TO THE SEARCH OF CLOSED CONTAINERS WITHIN THE VEHICLE WHICH ARE NEITHER LOCKED NOR SEALED?
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacobs v. State, 98-00179.
...exceeded the scope of consent to "look around" a vehicle by looking inside a ladies' cosmetic kit found therein); State v. Neeley, 548 So.2d 1165, 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (codefendant of Abrams). The supreme court has not answered the certified At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Jaco......
-
Wallace v. State, 89-01009
...of closed containers exceeds the scope of a general consent. State v. Abrams, 548 So.2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) and State v. Neeley, 548 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). We therefore reverse the trial court's order denying the suppression of the cocaine found in Appellant's vehicle. As we did ......
- State v. Neeley
- Ridgewood Properties, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Community Affairs, 88-2725