From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stone v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Mar 30, 1989
540 So. 2d 261 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Opinion

No. 88-817.

March 30, 1989.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County; Joseph P. Baker, Judge.

Hilliard Moldof of Whitelock Moldof, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Fleming Lee, Bureau Chief, Office of the Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach for appellee.


The trial court's denial of the defendant's Motion to Suppress is affirmed although the arresting officer making an inventory search did not offer the defendant an alternative to the impoundment of the defendant's automobile when the defendant was arrested. Since Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987), the requirement that an arrested driver be offered an alternative to impoundment of his vehicle, as formerly required under Miller v. State, 403 So.2d 1307 (Fla. 1981), no longer exists. State v. Wells, 539 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1989); Robinson v. State, 537 So.2d 95 (Fla. 1989); State v. Smith, 529 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); and State v. Williams, 516 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and DANIEL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stone v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Mar 30, 1989
540 So. 2d 261 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
Case details for

Stone v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY STONE, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Mar 30, 1989

Citations

540 So. 2d 261 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Citing Cases

Tullis v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

Moreover, an arrested driver does not have to be offered an alternative to impoundment of his vehicle. Stone…