Gaddy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gaddy v. State

399 So. 2d 110, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19967

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 1981

DocketNo. VV-11

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 399 So. 2d 110 (Gaddy 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

Gaddy v. State, 399 So. 2d 110, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19967 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from his conviction of armed robbery, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the fruits of a search of his automobile which was made following his arrest for speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol. Although we do not agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence was seized pursuant to a valid inventory search, we find that the search was valid on other grounds. The officers who seized the evidence were justified in the search of the front seat area of appellant’s vehicle because they had probable cause to believe that it contained a concealed firearm and exigent circumstances existed for such search. See Benton v. State, 329 So.2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from his conviction of armed robbery, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the fruits of a search of his automobile which was made following his arrest for speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol. Although we do not agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence was seized pursuant to a valid inventory search, we find that the search was valid on other grounds. The officers who seized the evidence were justified in the search of the front seat area of appellant’s vehicle because they had probable cause to believe that it contained a concealed firearm and exigent circumstances existed for such search. See Benton v. State, 329 So.2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

399 So. 2d 110, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaddy-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack