Waterhouse v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Waterhouse v. State

256 So. 2d 397, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7464

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 11, 1972

DocketNo. 71-691

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 256 So. 2d 397 (Waterhouse 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

Waterhouse v. State, 256 So. 2d 397, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7464 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant below from a judgment of conviction of possession of narcotic drug, on two counts of an information; one count relating to marijuana and the other to cocaine. The defendant was arrested in the nighttime, for an observed violation of a traffic regulation, which consisted of running a red light. A check made by the officer at the time of the arrest disclosed there were outstanding fugitive warrants against the defendant predicated upon earlier traffic offenses. The defendant was given the Miranda warnings by the officer, and chose not to answer any questions without an attorney present. Prior to having the defendant’s automobile towed away, the officer made an inventory search thereof, in the course of which, when a flashlight was shone into the car the officer saw the narcotic drugs lying in the car under the seat.

In the circumstances of this case, the contentions of the appellant that the search was unlawful, and that the court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence thus obtained, are without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the defendant below from a judgment of conviction of possession of narcotic drug, on two counts of an information; one count relating to marijuana and the other to cocaine. The defendant was arrested in the nighttime, for an observed violation of a traffic regulation, which consisted of running a red light. A check made by the officer at the time of the arrest disclosed there were outstanding fugitive warrants against the defendant predicated upon earlier traffic offenses. The defendant was given the Miranda warnings by the officer, and chose not to answer any questions without an attorney present. Prior to having the defendant’s automobile towed away, the officer made an inventory search thereof, in the course of which, when a flashlight was shone into the car the officer saw the narcotic drugs lying in the car under the seat.

In the circumstances of this case, the contentions of the appellant that the search was unlawful, and that the court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence thus obtained, are without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 So. 2d 397, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 7464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waterhouse-v-state-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack