State v. Ross, 209 So. 3d 606

Police responded to a late-night noise complaint and found Damien Ross asleep in the driver’s seat of a parked car with music playing. Ross awoke, drove off without headlights, and led officers on a high-speed, fleeing-and-evading episode before disappearing into a residence where he was later arrested.
Officers located Ross’s car parked on the lawn of a nearby home; officers entered the home, located Ross in a bedroom, and arrested him.
Sergeant Seymour approached the parked car (in anticipation of tow) and, looking through a window, observed a half of a crack‑cocaine “cookie” on the front passenger‑side floor.
Without obtaining a warrant, police searched the car and uncovered additional crack cocaine and powder cocaine.
Ross moved to suppress the vehicle evidence as the product of an unlawful warrantless search; the trial court granted suppression as to the car evidence but suppressed evidence found in the home as well; the State appealed.
The Second District affirmed suppression of the house evidence but reversed suppression of the car evidence, holding the automobile exception (and plain/open‑view) supplied probable cause for a warrantless search.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless search of Ross’s parked car violated the Fourth Amendment	State: Officer’s observation of drugs in plain view gave probable cause under the automobile exception to search without a warrant	Ross: Viewing/search unobtained by warrant was unlawful; trial court relied on suspicion that windows may have been opened after arrest	Reversed suppression of car evidence; plain/open‑view observation gave probable cause and authorized automobile search
Whether officer’s view of drugs through car window was lawful	State: Officer lawfully stood on property and could see into car; plain/open‑view applies	Ross: Trial court suspected intervening events (windows opened) that could undermine plain view	Court credited Sgt. Seymour’s testimony; no competent evidence of intervening events; view was lawful
Whether automobile exception requires exigent circumstances once vehicle immobilized	State: Exigent circumstances not required once probable cause exists	Ross: Immobilized vehicle & owner arrested undermine exigency; warrant required	Court: Automobile exception focuses on probable cause, not exigency; immutable once probable cause exists
Whether suppression order should be partially or fully affirmed	Ross: Suppress all evidence from vehicle	State: Reverse suppression as to vehicle evidence	Court: Affirmed suppression for house evidence; reversed suppression for vehicle evidence; remanded

Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938 (warrantless vehicle search permissible with probable cause)
California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (automobile exception applied to mobile vehicles)
State v. Green, 943 So. 2d 1004 (observation of contraband in parked car after arrest supplies probable cause for warrantless search)
Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259 (probable cause to search automobile remains after vehicle immobilized)
Adoue v. State, 408 So. 2d 567 (open‑view doctrine applies when officer stands in nonprotected area and observes contraband)
State v. Navarro, 464 So. 2d 137 (appellate courts accept trial findings only where evidence supports them)
State v. Gardner, 72 So. 3d 218 (warrantless search of parked car authorized where officer had probable cause based on observed evidence)
State v. Fischer, 987 So. 2d 708 (warrantless vehicle search authorized where officers observed apparent cocaine in open view)