State v. Allen

407 So. 2d 369, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21916
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 18, 1981
DocketNo. 81-876
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 407 So. 2d 369 (State v. Allen) 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
State v. Allen, 407 So. 2d 369, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21916 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

HOBSON, Judge.

The State of Florida appeals orders granting appellee’s motions to suppress evidence and to suppress confession or admissions. We reverse.

The record shows, and the trial court was aware that the deputies had probable cause to arrest appellee’s passenger and search appellee’s van. The issue before us is whether, after discovering a small change purse in the floor of the passenger compartment, the deputies were required to obtain a search warrant in order to open the purse and examine its contents. The trial court held that “the better procedure would have been the lesser intrusion of seizing [the change purse] and then obtaining a warrant.”

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court decision in New York v. Belton, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981) is controlling.1 The Belton court held:

... [W]hen a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.
It follows from this conclusion that the police may also examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment.

101 S.Ct. at 2864.

The trial court granted appellee’s motion to suppress confession or admissions based on its decision that the evidence was illegally seized.

We reverse the orders granting the motions to suppress evidence and to suppress confession or admissions. This cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

SCHEB, A. C. J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.

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

Related

State v. Moore
619 So. 2d 376 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
State v. Barth
434 So. 2d 19 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
State v. Valdes
423 So. 2d 944 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
407 So. 2d 369, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-allen-fladistctapp-1981.