Case ID: so2d_402/html/1239-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

German GOMEZ and Florentino Molina, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 80-1328, 80-1329.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Aug. 4, 1981.
    Rehearing Denied Sept. 28, 1981.
    
      Bierman, Sonnett, Beiley & Shohat and Benedict P. Kuehne, Miami, for appellants.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
    Before HUBBART, C. J., and BARK-DULL and FERGUSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The judgments of conviction and sentences under review are affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the motion to suppress the evidence was properly denied by the trial court as the subject marijuana was observed by a state agent in “open view” prior to any official intrusion upon the defendant’s privacy, which “open view” gave the state agent probable cause to search the defendants’ boat without a search warrant and to seize the marijuana thereon, see e. g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), adopted by § 933.19, Fla.Stat. (1979); Ensor v. State, 403 So.2d 349 (Fla.1981); and (b) the motion to dismiss the information for lack of jurisdiction over the offense was properly denied by the trial court because the ground urged in support thereof could only be urged on a sworn motion to dismiss under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.190(c)(4) or on a motion for judgment of acquittal at trial.

Affirmed.