Obenstine v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Obenstine v. State

895 So. 2d 1286, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4462, 2005 WL 662697

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 23, 2005

DocketNo. 3D04-2422

StatusPublished

This text of 895 So. 2d 1286 (Obenstine 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

Obenstine v. State, 895 So. 2d 1286, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4462, 2005 WL 662697 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm the trial court’s ruling because the contraband seized from the defendant’s pocket after he was asked to exit the vehicle in which he was a passenger would have been inevitably discovered as one of the officers looking in through the driver’s window observed crack cocaine in clear view on the center console of the vehicle, thus giving the officers probable cause, not only to search, but to arrest the defendant. See Smith v. State, 363 So.2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)(holding that where an officer observed both defendants in the front seat of an automobile and, after the defendants got out, another officer observed several marijuana cigarettes in the front seat, the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendants and the evidence discovered in the search pursuant to that arrest was admissible). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm the trial court’s ruling because the contraband seized from the defendant’s pocket after he was asked to exit the vehicle in which he was a passenger would have been inevitably discovered as one of the officers looking in through the driver’s window observed crack cocaine in clear view on the center console of the vehicle, thus giving the officers probable cause, not only to search, but to arrest the defendant. See Smith v. State, 363 So.2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)(holding that where an officer observed both defendants in the front seat of an automobile and, after the defendants got out, another officer observed several marijuana cigarettes in the front seat, the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendants and the evidence discovered in the search pursuant to that arrest was admissible). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

895 So. 2d 1286, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4462, 2005 WL 662697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obenstine-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack