State v. Wells
539 So. 2d 464 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general consent to search a vehicle does not extend to the forcible opening of a locked container found within it. Furthermore, an inventory search of a closed container is only permissible if conducted pursuant to a standardized, non-discretionary policy that requires the opening of all such containers.
Facts:
- Martin Leslie Wells was stopped by a Florida Highway Patrol trooper for speeding while driving a car loaned to him by a friend.
- After detecting the smell of alcohol, the trooper arrested Wells for driving under the influence (DUI).
- When Wells went to retrieve his coat from the car, the trooper noticed a large amount of cash on the vehicle's floorboard.
- The trooper asked for and received consent from Wells to open and look inside the car's trunk; Wells stated he did not know what was in the trunk.
- After neither Wells nor the trooper could open the trunk's special lock, Wells gave permission for the trunk to be forced open later if necessary.
- The vehicle was impounded, and at the impound facility, officers opened the trunk and found a locked suitcase.
- Under the trooper's direction, facility employees used a knife to pry open the locked suitcase, discovering a large quantity of marijuana inside.
Procedural Posture:
- Martin Leslie Wells was charged with possession of a controlled substance in a Florida trial court.
- Wells filed a motion to suppress the contraband, which the trial court denied.
- Wells entered a plea of nolo contendere, reserving his right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion.
- Wells, as appellant, appealed to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling and ordered the evidence suppressed.
- The State of Florida, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida, citing a direct conflict with another district court decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a driver's general consent to search a vehicle's trunk authorize a police officer to forcibly pry open a locked suitcase found inside?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A driver's general consent to search a vehicle's trunk does not authorize police to forcibly open a locked suitcase discovered within it. The scope of a consensual search is strictly limited by the extent of the permission granted. The court reasoned that consent and probable cause are distinct legal concepts; the broad search authority under the probable cause standard of United States v. Ross does not apply to consent-based searches. The act of locking a container manifests a high expectation of privacy, and general consent to search an area does not imply consent to break into such a container. The search was also not justified as an inventory search under Colorado v. Bertine because the Florida Highway Patrol lacked a standardized policy mandating the opening of all closed containers, which is necessary to eliminate officer discretion. However, the impoundment itself was proper, so marijuana butts found in the ashtray during the inventory of the passenger compartment were admissible.
Dissenting - Shaw, J.
Yes. The dissent would find the search permissible, arguing that the majority misapplied Colorado v. Bertine. The dissenting opinion contends that the Florida Highway Patrol's existing procedures, which require an inventory of 'all articles' in a vehicle, are functionally equivalent to the standardized procedures upheld in Bertine and effectively mandate the opening of closed containers. The dissent argues that these procedures sufficiently limit officer discretion and serve the protective purposes of an inventory search. Additionally, the dissent suggests that the principles of United States v. Ross, allowing searches of containers within a vehicle, should be relevant to unrestricted consent searches and inventory searches, not just those based on probable cause.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in Florida by establishing a clear boundary for consent searches. It holds that general consent to search a space, like a car trunk, does not implicitly extend to destroying the privacy of a locked container within that space. This reinforces the principle that the scope of consent is defined by what a reasonable person would understand the consent to include. Moreover, the decision strictly adopts the Bertine standard for inventory searches, requiring police departments to have explicit, non-discretionary written policies for opening containers, thereby limiting the potential for such searches to be used as a pretext for criminal investigation.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Wells