Opinion ID: 1095147
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Impoundment Issue

Text: Finally, we find that the impoundment in this instance, and hence the search of the interior of the car that followed was proper under Bertine. This conclusion is compelled by the fact that, to the extent of any inconsistency, Bertine has superseded Miller v. State, 403 So.2d 1307 (Fla. 1981), and Sanders v. State, 403 So.2d 973 (Fla. 1981). Under the analysis in Bertine, we believe the Patrol is not compelled to provide an alternative to impoundment, as we held in Miller and Sanders. Thus, we believe the officer in this instance acted reasonably by choosing to impound an automobile containing several thousands dollars in cash rather than leave it unprotected at the roadside. For this reason, we conclude that the seizure of the marijuana cigarette butts in this instance was permissible as an incident of a proper impoundment. See Art. I, § 12, Fla. Const. Since the cigarette butts were not inside any closed or locked container, the suppression of the butts was improper under Bertine. We, thus, approve in part and quash in part the result reached by the district court below, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. No renewed motion for rehearing will be entertained. It is so ordered. EHRLICH, C.J., and BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. SHAW, J., dissents with an opinion, in which OVERTON and McDONALD, JJ., concur.