Case Name: James GETTY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1978-08-01
Citations: 362 So. 2d 322
Docket Number: No. 77-1096
Parties: James GETTY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 362
Pages: 322–323

Head Matter:
James GETTY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 77-1096.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 1, 1978.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender and Elliot Gersten, Legal Intern, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The single issue presented upon this appeal is whether the trial judge erroneously denied defendant's motion to suppress the physical evidence. There were three searches: (1) of defendant's automobile at the time of his arrest, (2) of defendant's automobile at the police garage pursuant to a search warrant, and (3) of defendant's residence pursuant to a search warrant. Defendant attacks the validity of the search warrants upon the ground that the affidavits do not show probable cause. We hold that in each case, the affidavit contains sufficient facts to show probable cause. See the principles of law in Brenner v. State, 337 So.2d 1007, 1008-1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
Defendant does not question the legality of his arrest. The initial warrantless search at the time of his arrest, when contraband was seen but not removed, was a legal search pursuant to defendant's arrest and was necessary for an inventory incident to the impoundment of defendant's automobile. See Waterhouse v. State, 256 So.2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); and Gagnon v. State, 212 So.2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).
Affirmed.