State v. CashState v. Cash
By this interlocutory appeal, the State seeks reversal of the lowеr court‘s order granting the defendant‘s motion to suppress certain evidence found in his automobile.
The only facts pertinent to a disposition of the issue of whether said evidence was inadmissible because it was the fruit of an unlawful search and in violation of defеndant‘s constitutional rights are as herein set out. On June 17, 1972, defendant was аrrested for trespassing at the Town and Surf Motel in Daytona Beaсh. As he was being walked to the police car to be taken to the police station, the motel owner advised the arresting officer that the defendant had a car on the motel premisеs and asked that it be removed. The arresting officer then callеd a wrecker to have the car towed to the policе compound while the defendant was in jail. Before the wreckеr arrived, the arresting officer went to the car to make a “routine inventory ... to make sure there is nothing that can be claimed оf value that might have possibly been taken from the car while impоunded.” This was normal police procedure when dealing with impounded vehicles. After placing the defendant‘s keys in the ignition, the arresting officer observed a cellophane bag containing a substance which appeared to be marijuana.
The State contends that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence found in defendant‘s car fоr the reason that the arresting officer had a lawful right to be in the рosition from which he viewed the evidence inasmuch as he was сonducting a routine inventory search of the vehicle beforе impounding it. Once lawfully inside the defendant‘s vehicle, what is observed in plain view cannot be objected to, for to observe what is in рlain sight is not a search. Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968); State v. Parnell, 221 So.2d 129 (Fla. 1969).
We agree with the State‘s сontention herein and are required to reverse the order granting the defendant‘s motion to suppress the evidence found in the automobile. This case involves a routine inventory search cоnducted after the motel owner‘s request to the arresting officer to remove the trespassing defendant‘s vehicle from the motel premises. When police officers are lawfully in possessiоn of a vehicle after its owner has been placed under arrest and are responsible for protecting it, it is reasonable to conduct a search for the purpose of making an invеntory of the contents of the vehicle. Urquhart v. State, 261 So.2d 535 (Fla.App.2d, 1971). Objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have thаt view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidencе. Harris v. United States, supra, United States v. Mitchell, 458 F.2d 960 (9th Cir., 1972).
For the reasons hereinabove set forth, the order suppressing evidence is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
SPECTOR, C.J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.