Patterson v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Shaw v. State

    449 So. 2d 976 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 6 times
    Affirming denial of motion to suppress, even though defendant was handcuffed and placed in the officer's vehicle before the search was conducted

    404 So.2d at 1104. See also State v. Zimmerman, 413 So.2d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (defendant handcuffed and inside police car at time of vehicle search); Patterson v. State, 402 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); compare State v. Vanderhorst, 419 So.2d 762 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (facts did not reveal that arrestee was recent occupant of vehicle). The fact that George was the only one of the three who was under arrest at the time of the search does not make the search of the vehicle any less valid insofar as the rights of Cleveland and the third occupant are concerned. The lawful arrest of only one occupant will support a Belton search of the vehicle.

  2. Ruiz v. State

    412 So. 2d 404 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

    We reject the defendant's central argument on appeal that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the evidence which formed the basis for the criminal charges in this cause as clearly the search herein was made incident to a valid arrest of the defendant. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981); Chapas v. State, 404 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Patterson v. State, 402 So.2d 1190, 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We have carefully examined the other contentions raised by the defendant and find that they present no reversible error.

  3. Miller v. State

    411 So. 2d 290 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 1 times

    The 1979 provisions of the Florida Youthful Offender Act do not indicate that sentences for escape should be excluded from the purview of the Act. Cf. Whitlock v. State, 404 So.2d 795 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981); Patterson v. State (Fla. 2nd DCA 1981) [1981 FLW 124]. We also find that under the circumstances presented here, Miller was not precluded from youthful offender treatment on each sentence despite language in the Act that a defendant is ineligible if he has "previously been classified a youthful offender under the provisions of this act."

  4. Chapas v. State

    404 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 19 times
    Upholding Belton search after defendant was ordered out of the car, arrested for driving while intoxicated, and placed in a police vehicle

    Applying the Belton rule, we hold that the search of appellant's automobile and seizure of the rifle therein were constitutionally permissible as a search incident to arrest. Accord, Patterson v. State, 402 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). AFFIRMED.