Legal Opinion

Gomez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 4, 1981No. Nos. 80-1328, 80-1329PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

The judgments of conviction and sentences under review are affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the motion to suppress the evidence was properly denied by the trial court as the subject marijuana was observed by a state agent in “open view” prior to any official intrusion upon the defendant’s privacy, which “open view” gave the state agent probable cause to search the defendants’ boat without a search warrant and to seize the marijuana thereon, see e. g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), adopted by § 933.19, Fla.Stat. (1979); Ensor v. State, 403 So.2d…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. Ensor v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1981

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Vessel Described as One 36 Foot Mirage, BHN CBD 36011M831 Displaying Florida Registration Numbers FL5182 Em v. State, Department of Natural ResourcesDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1986
  2. Gomez v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  3. State v. HarvellCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API