Galvez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Galvez v. State

474 So. 2d 419, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2018

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 23, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1778

StatusPublished

This text of 474 So. 2d 419 (Galvez 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

Galvez v. State, 474 So. 2d 419, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2018 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OTT, Acting Chief Judge.

We reverse appellant’s conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial. Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence and admissions with respect to the search and seizure of his travel bag and contraband contained therein should have been granted. The search and seizure of appellant’s travel bag cannot be justified under any of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. See Hornblower v. State, 351 So.2d 716 (Fla.1977). Specifically, the contested search and seizure cannot be justified as a search incident to lawful arrest because there was no showing that the bag was within the immediate control of appellant. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). Further, there were no exigent circumstances that would have prevented the officers from sealing the room and obtaining a search [420]*420warrant. See Hornblower, 351 So.2d at 718.

Appellant’s remaining point on appeal is without merit. The trial court correctly denied appellant’s motion to suppress evidence found as a result of the initial search and seizure, which was clearly justified under the “plain view” doctrine. See State v. Hall, 376 So.2d 276, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Accordingly, appellant’s conviction and sentence are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court to conduct a new trial consistent with this opinion. ■

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.

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

OTT, Acting Chief Judge.

We reverse appellant’s conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial. Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence and admissions with respect to the search and seizure of his travel bag and contraband contained therein should have been granted. The search and seizure of appellant’s travel bag cannot be justified under any of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. See Hornblower v. State, 351 So.2d 716 (Fla.1977). Specifically, the contested search and seizure cannot be justified as a search incident to lawful arrest because there was no showing that the bag was within the immediate control of appellant. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). Further, there were no exigent circumstances that would have prevented the officers from sealing the room and obtaining a search [420]*420warrant. See Hornblower, 351 So.2d at 718.

Appellant’s remaining point on appeal is without merit. The trial court correctly denied appellant’s motion to suppress evidence found as a result of the initial search and seizure, which was clearly justified under the “plain view” doctrine. See State v. Hall, 376 So.2d 276, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Accordingly, appellant’s conviction and sentence are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court to conduct a new trial consistent with this opinion. ■

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SCHOONOVER and HALL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 So. 2d 419, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galvez-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack