Summary
finding the police did not fail to preserve evidence when it returned the rental truck to its owner instead of the defendant because the defendant had the truck's identification number and could have located the truck
Summary of this case from Landry v. Charlotte Motor Cars, LLCOpinion
No. 82-1163.
February 22, 1983.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Murray Goldman, J.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and John H. Lipinski, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Penny Hershoff Brill, Miami, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUBBART and DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
The fact that the police returned to its owner a Jartran rental truck driven by and seized from the defendant did not, as the defendant suggests, constitute a failure to preserve evidence, entitling the defendant to a dismissal of the charges. First, the defendant was provided with the identification number of the truck and with the exertion of any effort could have located and examined the very truck. Second, in that the defendant's avowed purpose in examining the truck was to aid him in cross-examining a police officer as to the officer's ability to detect the odor of marijuana in the padlocked portion of the truck, other substantially identical Jartran trucks were available for that purpose. Thus, even if it could be said that the evidence was not preserved, the defendant was not prejudiced thereby, and the extreme sanction of dismissal was inappropriate. State v. Sobel, 363 So.2d 324 (Fla. 1978). The defendant's other point on appeal is equally without merit.
Affirmed.