Getty v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Getty v. State

362 So. 2d 322, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17176

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 1, 1978

DocketNo. 77-1096

StatusPublished

This text of 362 So. 2d 322 (Getty 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

Getty v. State, 362 So. 2d 322, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17176 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The single issue presented upon this appeal is whether the trial judge erroneously denied defendant’s motion to suppress the physical evidence. There were three searches: (1) of defendant’s automobile at the time of his arrest, (2) of defendant’s automobile at the police garage pursuant to a search warrant, and (3) of defendant’s residence pursuant to a search warrant. Defendant attacks the validity of the search warrants upon the ground that the affidavits do not show probable cause. We hold that in each case, the affidavit contains sufficient facts to show probable cause. See the principles of law in Brenner v. State, 337 So.2d 1007, 1008-1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Defendant does not question the legality of his arrest. The initial warrantless search at the time of his arrest, when contraband was seen but not removed, was a legal search pursuant to defendant’s arrest and was necessary for an inventory incident to the impoundment of defendant’s automobile. See Waterhouse v. State, 256 So.2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); and Gagnon v. State, 212 So.2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The single issue presented upon this appeal is whether the trial judge erroneously denied defendant’s motion to suppress the physical evidence. There were three searches: (1) of defendant’s automobile at the time of his arrest, (2) of defendant’s automobile at the police garage pursuant to a search warrant, and (3) of defendant’s residence pursuant to a search warrant. Defendant attacks the validity of the search warrants upon the ground that the affidavits do not show probable cause. We hold that in each case, the affidavit contains sufficient facts to show probable cause. See the principles of law in Brenner v. State, 337 So.2d 1007, 1008-1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Defendant does not question the legality of his arrest. The initial warrantless search at the time of his arrest, when contraband was seen but not removed, was a legal search pursuant to defendant’s arrest and was necessary for an inventory incident to the impoundment of defendant’s automobile. See Waterhouse v. State, 256 So.2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); and Gagnon v. State, 212 So.2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 So. 2d 322, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 17176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/getty-v-state-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack