Can Florida Police Officers Seize Possible Evidence in “Plain View”?

Even when the police lawfully stop and detain you, officers usually still need a warrant to search your personal effects without your consent. There is an exception, however, for anything that is considered in “plain view” of the officer. This exception has three requirements:

• The officer must be in a place where they have a legitimate right to be;
• The incriminating nature of the object seized is immediately apparent; and
• The officer has a lawful right of access to the object seized.

Regarding the “incriminating nature” of an object, it is not necessary for the officer to know with absolute certainty that the item seized is contraband or evidence of a crime. Rather, the courts look at whether a “reasonable man of caution” would believe the object is contraband. Even if that belief proves to be false or inaccurate, that in and of itself does not render the officer’s actions illegal.

Glass Pipe Leads to Florida Man’s Drug Arrest, No Contest Plea

Here is a recent example where the Florida courts upheld a warrantless search under this plain view exception. This case, Ferrell v. State, began when a sheriff’s deputy saw the defendant “engage with a man in a black Nissan,” according to court records. The officer suspected this was an illegal drug transaction.

The deputy contacted another officer located nearby. Both deputies then followed the defendant as he drove away. After observing the defendant’s failure to stop at two stop signs, the deputies initiated a traffic stop.

During the stop, officers removed a pocket knife clipped to the defendant’s cell phone case. (Police officers are allowed to do this for safety reasons.) While taking the knife, however, the deputy saw a “small baggie with white powder” inside the phone case. The deputy asked the defendant about the baggie. The defendant replied it was a pipe, not a baggie, and reached down towards the item. The deputy then seized the item, which turned out to be a pipe.

The deputy then arrested the defendant for possession of drug paraphernalia. A search incident to the arrest discovered additional illegal drugs. Before the trial court, the defendant moved to suppress all of this evidence, arguing the deputies had no right to conduct the initial seizure of his pipe.

The trial judge held the evidence was admissible under the plain view exception. The defendant subsequently pleaded “no contest” to several criminal charges. He reserved the right to appeal with respect to the denial of his motion to suppress.

The Florida Second District Court ultimately upheld the trial court’s ruling. It noted the deputy had a lawful reason to detain the defendant–he ran two stop signs–and that beyond the fact the defendant saw a suspicious object in plain view, the defendant’s own statement that he had a pipe on him created probable cause for his drug paraphernalia arrest. Under the circumstances, the Second District said the officer did nothing wrong.

Contact an Orlando Drug Distribution Lawyer Today

When questioned by police, especially on suspicion of illegal drug activity, it is always best to say as little as possible. The only person you should speak to is a qualified Orlando drug distribution attorney who can represent your interests in court. Call the Joshi Law Firm, PA, today at 844-GO-JOSHI or contact us online to schedule a free initial consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1567770293230312294