Arena v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Arena v. State

447 So. 2d 340, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11957

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 29, 1984

DocketNo. 82-1763

StatusPublished

This text of 447 So. 2d 340 (Arena 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.

Bluebook

Arena v. State, 447 So. 2d 340, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11957 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for burglary. We affirm.

We believe there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress concerning the seizure of evidence from appellant at the scene of the burglary. Specifically the evidence would support a finding that the police officer who seized the evidence had probable cause to arrest and search the appellant at the time. This probable cause could have been predicated both on the officer’s knowledge of the burglary that had just taken place and the appellant’s bizarre behavior at the scene. Cf. State v. Williams, 34 Wash.App. 662, 663 P.2d 1368 (1983) and Commonwealth v. Williams, — Pa.Super. —, 464 A.2d 411 (1983). We also find no error in the trial court’s refusal to inval[341]*341idate the warrantless search of an automobile which, according to the evidence, appeared at the time to be owned by appellant’s girlfriend who opened the automobile for the police, fully consented to a search thereof, and then drove off in the same vehicle. Although ownership of the automobile was later disputed, there was evidence presented that the vehicle was registered in the girlfriend’s name.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and BERANEK and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for burglary. We affirm.

We believe there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress concerning the seizure of evidence from appellant at the scene of the burglary. Specifically the evidence would support a finding that the police officer who seized the evidence had probable cause to arrest and search the appellant at the time. This probable cause could have been predicated both on the officer’s knowledge of the burglary that had just taken place and the appellant’s bizarre behavior at the scene. Cf. State v. Williams, 34 Wash.App. 662, 663 P.2d 1368 (1983) and Commonwealth v. Williams, — Pa.Super. —, 464 A.2d 411 (1983). We also find no error in the trial court’s refusal to inval[341]*341idate the warrantless search of an automobile which, according to the evidence, appeared at the time to be owned by appellant’s girlfriend who opened the automobile for the police, fully consented to a search thereof, and then drove off in the same vehicle. Although ownership of the automobile was later disputed, there was evidence presented that the vehicle was registered in the girlfriend’s name.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and BERANEK and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

447 So. 2d 340, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arena-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack