Acosta v. State
This text of 431 So. 2d 715 (Acosta v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Francisco ACOSTA, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Calianne P. Lantz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) there was probable cause for the defendant's arrest based on all the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer, see e.g., State v. Outten, 206 So.2d 392, 397 (Fla. 1968); Skelton v. State, 349 So.2d 193, 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); (b) the search of the passenger compartment of the car which the defendant was driving was reasonably incident to effecting the arrest of the defendant, see e.g., New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), even though the search preceded the arrest, as the search was conducted at a time when there was probable cause for the arrest, see e.g., Dixon v. State, 343 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), and (c) the trial court was therefore eminently correct in denying the motion to suppress the fruits of the subject search. See e.g., McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410, 412 (Fla. 1978).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
431 So. 2d 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acosta-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.