Moline v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moline v. State

404 So. 2d 826, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21300

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 1981

DocketNo. YY-199

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 404 So. 2d 826 (Moline 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

Moline v. State, 404 So. 2d 826, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21300 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLS, Judge.

Moline appeals the denial of his motion to suppress controlled substances found in his car. We affirm.

However, we expressly decline to affirm the “good-faith” exception to the exclusionary rule as found by the trial court. We note specifically this court’s opinion in Walden v. State, 397 So.2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), 1981 F.L.W. 833, which held that we are precluded from considering such an exception until it is adopted by the Florida Supreme Court.

We find that the police officer’s command for Moline to sit up from his prone position on the car seat, considering the furtive movements of Moline, the area where the vehicle was located, the time of night, and the fact that Moline appeared to be trying to stuff something between the car seats, was such a limited intrusion that there was no constitutional violation by the officers. Once Moline sat up, the contraband was in “open view” and subject to seizure under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Ensor v. State, 403 So.2d 349 (Fla.1981), Case No. 57,817, opinion filed June 4, 1981.

Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.

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

MILLS, Judge.

Moline appeals the denial of his motion to suppress controlled substances found in his car. We affirm.

However, we expressly decline to affirm the “good-faith” exception to the exclusionary rule as found by the trial court. We note specifically this court’s opinion in Walden v. State, 397 So.2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), 1981 F.L.W. 833, which held that we are precluded from considering such an exception until it is adopted by the Florida Supreme Court.

We find that the police officer’s command for Moline to sit up from his prone position on the car seat, considering the furtive movements of Moline, the area where the vehicle was located, the time of night, and the fact that Moline appeared to be trying to stuff something between the car seats, was such a limited intrusion that there was no constitutional violation by the officers. Once Moline sat up, the contraband was in “open view” and subject to seizure under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Ensor v. State, 403 So.2d 349 (Fla.1981), Case No. 57,817, opinion filed June 4, 1981.

Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

404 So. 2d 826, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moline-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack