home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Shareware Overload Trio 2
/
Shareware Overload Trio Volume 2 (Chestnut CD-ROM).ISO
/
dir33
/
cwru_ct.zip
/
90-622.S
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-11-06
|
3KB
|
58 lines
Subject: FLORIDA v. JIMENO, Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as
is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is
issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but
has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the
reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
FLORIDA v. JIMENO et al.
certiorari to the supreme court of florida
No. 90-622. Argued March 25, 1991 -- Decided May 23, 1991
Having stopped respondent Jimeno's car for a traffic infraction, police
officer Trujillo, who had been following the car after overhearing Jimeno
arranging what appeared to be a drug transaction, declared that he had
reason to believe that Jimeno was carrying narcotics in the car, and asked
permission to search it. Jimeno consented, and Trujillo found cocaine
inside a folded paper bag on the car's floorboard. Jimeno was charged with
possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of Florida law,
but the state trial court granted his motion to suppress the cocaine on the
ground that his consent to search the car did not carry with it specific
consent to open the bag and examine its contents. The Florida District
Court of Appeal and Supreme Court affirmed.
Held: A criminal suspect's Fourth Amendment right to be free from
unreasonable searches is not violated when, after he gives police per
mission to search his car, they open a closed container found within the
car that might reasonably hold the object of the search. The Amendment is
satisfied when, under the circumstances, it is objectively rea sonable for
the police to believe that the scope of the suspect's consent permitted
them to open the particular container. Here, the authorization to search
extended beyond the car's interior surfaces to the bag, since Jimeno did
not place any explicit limitation on the scope of the search and was aware
that Trujillo would be looking for narcotics in the car, and since a
reasonable person may be expected to know that narcotics are generally
carried in some form of container. There is no basis for adding to the
Fourth Amendment's basic test of objective reasonableness a requirement
that, if police wish to search closed containers within a car, they must
separately request permission to search each container. Pp. 2-4.
564 So. 2d 1083, reversed and remanded.
Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which White,
Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ., joined. Marshall,
J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------