Tamburro v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tamburro v. State

343 So. 2d 638, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15086

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 1977

DocketNo. 75-2166

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 343 So. 2d 638 (Tamburro 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

Tamburro v. State, 343 So. 2d 638, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15086 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge.

Distinguishing Brown v. State, 313 So.2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) and Brown v. State, 330 So.2d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) on their facts, we hold that the totality of the circumstances presented to the arresting police officer, including the “spacy” condition of the defendant after he was stopped for a traffic violation, the odor of marijuana, and the apparent “roach” which was seen in plain view in his car, was such as to create probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed the offense of possession of cannabis. Clark v. State, 322 So.2d 635 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975); State v. Daniel, 319 So.2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); State v. Flores, 305 So.2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Lavazzoli v. State, 281 So.2d 519 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973). Hence, both the defendant’s [639]*639arrest and the subsequent search of his vehicle were valid. The trial court therefore properly denied the motion to suppress the sawed-off shot gun which was secured as a result of that search.

We likewise find no merit in the contention that the appellant’s nolo plea was improperly accepted by the trial court. Stovall v. State, 252 So.2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).

Affirmed.

DAUKSCH and LETTS, JJ., concur.

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

SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge.

Distinguishing Brown v. State, 313 So.2d 52 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) and Brown v. State, 330 So.2d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) on their facts, we hold that the totality of the circumstances presented to the arresting police officer, including the “spacy” condition of the defendant after he was stopped for a traffic violation, the odor of marijuana, and the apparent “roach” which was seen in plain view in his car, was such as to create probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed the offense of possession of cannabis. Clark v. State, 322 So.2d 635 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975); State v. Daniel, 319 So.2d 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); State v. Flores, 305 So.2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Lavazzoli v. State, 281 So.2d 519 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973). Hence, both the defendant’s [639]*639arrest and the subsequent search of his vehicle were valid. The trial court therefore properly denied the motion to suppress the sawed-off shot gun which was secured as a result of that search.

We likewise find no merit in the contention that the appellant’s nolo plea was improperly accepted by the trial court. Stovall v. State, 252 So.2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).

Affirmed.

DAUKSCH and LETTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 So. 2d 638, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tamburro-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack