State v. Harrington

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Harrington

632 So. 2d 706, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1692, 1994 WL 60843

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 2, 1994

DocketNo. 93-1811

StatusPublished

This text of 632 So. 2d 706 (State v. Harrington) 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. Harrington, 632 So. 2d 706, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1692, 1994 WL 60843 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order granting a motion to suppress physical evidence. Contrary to the trial court’s findings, the record supports that the traffic stop was valid and not merely a pretext to search the vehicle. Subsequent to the search, appellee was placed under arrest for driving under the influence, though it is of no legal consequence whether the search occurred before or after the arrest. See State v. Smith, 529 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Furthermore, it is not legally relevant that the arresting officers failed to offer an alternative to impoundment. Robinson v. State, 537 So.2d 95 (Fla.1989). It is well established that an officer arresting a driver for operating under the influence is entitled to search the passenger compartment, State v. Scott, 576 So.2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), and the fact that the officer later mischaracterized his actions as a standard procedure inventory search does not taint an otherwise appropriate search incident to arrest. State v. Blanco, 513 So.2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, HERSEY and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order granting a motion to suppress physical evidence. Contrary to the trial court’s findings, the record supports that the traffic stop was valid and not merely a pretext to search the vehicle. Subsequent to the search, appellee was placed under arrest for driving under the influence, though it is of no legal consequence whether the search occurred before or after the arrest. See State v. Smith, 529 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Furthermore, it is not legally relevant that the arresting officers failed to offer an alternative to impoundment. Robinson v. State, 537 So.2d 95 (Fla.1989). It is well established that an officer arresting a driver for operating under the influence is entitled to search the passenger compartment, State v. Scott, 576 So.2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), and the fact that the officer later mischaracterized his actions as a standard procedure inventory search does not taint an otherwise appropriate search incident to arrest. State v. Blanco, 513 So.2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, HERSEY and FARMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 So. 2d 706, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1692, 1994 WL 60843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harrington-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack