Case Name: William R. URQUHART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1971-07-02
Citations: 261 So. 2d 535
Docket Number: No. 69-388
Parties: William R. URQUHART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: MANN, J., concurs specially.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 261
Pages: 535–538

Head Matter:
William R. URQUHART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 69-388.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
July 2, 1971.
Rehearing Denied April 28, 1972.
Henry Gonzalez, Tampa, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen.; Lakeland, for appellee.

Opinion:
LILES, Judge.
In the early morning hours of October 13, 1966, two Tampa police detectives observed appellant Urquhart and his wife leave a lounge in Tampa. Mr. and Mrs. Urquhart were in separate cars. The Ur-quharts had been under police surveillance for several hours, but the evidence does not show the purpose of this surveillance. The detectives followed the appellant Urquhart, and when he exceeded the speed limit by about 15 m. p. h. the officers stopped him and asked him to step out of his automobile. The policeman testified that he then detected an odor of alcohol, and arrested appellant for careless driving and drinking. Urquhart was placed in a police car and an inventory was made of the contents of his vehicle for the purpose of impounding it. The inventory uncovered certain items which led to Urquhart's arrest and conviction for a breaking and entering.
Appellant contends that the search was illegal and in violation of his constitutional rights.
We disagree. It is well established that a minor traffic violation cannot be used as a pretext to search a vehicle for evidence of other crimes. Byrd v. State, Fla.1955, 80 So.2d 694; Riddlehoover v. State, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 651. This is not the situation in the instant case. The circuit court after hearing all the testimony found that appellant was lawfully arrested for a traffic violation. The circuit court's finding is supported by the fact that the traffic charge was pursued to the end. Urquhart was stopped for a traffic violation committed in the presence of police officers. The policeman noticed an odor of alcohol and arrested the appellant. Appellant's vehicle was then inventoried so that it could be impounded. We can find nothing wrong with this procedure.
This court's decision in Godbee v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 441, supports the idea that a search may be conducted for the purpose of making an inventory of the contents of an automobile, when that automobile is in the lawful possession of police officers after the owner has been placed under arrest. A very similar search occurred in Gagnon v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 337. In that case the Third District also held that a search of a vehicle was not unreasonable when the search was routine inventory of a car which is being taken into custody. The Gagnon case specifically involved stopping a vehicle for traffic violations, and subsequently discovering evidence of other crimes. Also see Knight v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 900, where appellant was arrested for having an improperly licensed vehicle. Inventory prior to impounding turned up a stolen jewelry box. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress the evidence, and the District Court affirmed. See also Chambers v. Maroney, 1970, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419.
For the foregoing reasons the trial court was correct and we therefore affirm.
Affirmed.
MANN, J., concurs specially.
PIERCE, C. J., dissents with opinion.