GILOMINO DIAZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Gilomino Diaz appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana, challenging both the admissibility of evidence seized during a hotel room search and the sufficiency of evidence supporting his conviction. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that marijuana seeds discovered during an authorized search for stolen property were properly seized as contraband and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
The court held that marijuana discovered during an authorized search of premises may be lawfully seized as contraband despite the search being limited to looking for other stolen property, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction where marijuana was found in the defendant's jewelry box in his hotel room.
“Inasmuch as the officers were conducting an authorized search of the premises for the alleged stolen property they were entitled to seize the contraband items found therein.”
Establishes the core holding that contraband discovered during an authorized search may be seized even if not the target of the search.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice suspected Diaz of theft of a television and $400 from a hotel. Before being formally charged, Diaz voluntarily signed a written consent allowin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Scope Of Consent To Search cases and more on FLexlaw
Theft of a television set and $400 occurred in a hotel under circumstances such as to cause the police to regard the appellant as a suspect. He was apprehended by police officers, and prior to being charged with an offense the appellant voluntarily signed a written consent for the police to search the room he occupied in another hotel, for the alleged stolen property. In making the search the officers discovered and seized a quantity of marijuana seeds, constituting contraband items. That evidence was used in the prosecution of the appellant when subsequently charged with unlawful possession of marijuana. He was convicted and adjudged guilty of that offense in a non-jury trial. On this appeal by him therefrom it is contended the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction and that the court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence above referred to.
An argument advanced on behalf of the appellant was that inasmuch as the consent he granted was to search his hotel room for the stolen property and money, the trial court should have suppressed the *38evidence consisting of marijuana found in his room as being beyond the scope of the authorized search and the fruit of an unlawful search and seizure. The argument lacks merit. Inasmuch as the officers were conducting an authorized search of the premises for the alleged stolen property they were entitled to seize the.contraband items found therein. See Joyner v. City of Lakeland, Fla. 1956, 90 So.2d 118, 122; 29 Fla.Jur., Search and Seizure, §§ 41, 45; 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures § 83.
We also have considered the appellant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction; and we hold the contention is without merit. The contraband was found in the appellant’s jewelry box, reposing on the desk in his hotel room. The possibility that the contraband could have belonged to another person and been placed therein by one in the employ of the hotel, asserted and relied on by appellant was properly considered by the trial court to be inadequate to refute or offset the evidentiary effect of the discovery-of marijuana in his hotel room.
No reversible error having been made to appear the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fahie v. State, 603 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…Wis.2d 13, 365 N.W. 2d 580 (1985). AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . § 790.23, Fla.Stat. (1989). . Given that officers were lawfully in Fahie’s bedroom, they were entitled to seize a gun locat [*92] ed in plain view. Diaz v. State, 206 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). There was some evidence that officers were also looking for a weapon when they obtained Fahie’s consent to enter the premises; however, there is no requirement of "inadvertence". See Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 110 S.Ct.…
Authorities Cited
- Lennie Lee Joyner v. City OF Lakeland, 90 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1956)