State v. Gonzalez
Docket: No. 88-2671
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 3, 1990; Florida; State Appellate Court
The State appeals a trial court's order that suppressed evidence obtained from the defendant's vehicle after a state trooper observed him illegally driving over a median strip. Upon stopping the vehicle, the trooper discovered the defendant's license was expired and that he could not provide registration or proof of insurance. Both the defendant and his passenger gave inconsistent accounts of their destination, with the passenger appearing nervous, prompting the officer to call for backup. When a second trooper arrived, the defendant consented to a search of the vehicle. During this search, the officer found a paper bag containing two unsealed boxes with cocaine inside. The trial court suppressed the evidence, concluding that the officer's request for consent only covered the vehicle itself and not the contents within, citing the case State v. Cross. The court also rejected the State's argument that the search was valid as incident to a lawful arrest since the officer had no intent to arrest the defendant until after discovering the contraband. The appellate court reversed the suppression order, determining that the officer's actions were justified as a valid search for weapons under Michigan v. Long, which permits searches of a vehicle's passenger compartment when an officer has reasonable belief of potential danger. The appellate court found that the circumstances warranted a prudent belief that the officer's safety or that of others was at risk. Therefore, the trial court's motion to suppress should have been denied. Automobile searches are not permissible during every investigative stop but are allowed during investigative detentions if there is a level of suspicion as established in Terry v. Ohio. In this case, the officer's observations raised reasonable concerns about the passenger being armed, meeting the standard from Michigan v. Long, which permits searches of the passenger compartment and containers where weapons may be stored. The search was valid, and any contraband found was lawfully seized. Consequently, the suppression order was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The officer had sufficient grounds for a custodial arrest. The Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on whether a search can occur if probable cause exists but an arrest is not made. Issues regarding the scope of consent for searching closed containers continue to be problematic, as highlighted by several cases that have been certified to the Florida Supreme Court.