FL6: Def abandoned bag by leaving it where he had no right to re-enter to retrieve it

“Hargrove left his bag on a residential property that he had no legal right to enter and in a vehicle that he had no legal right to enter. Therefore, Hargrove left the bag in a place where he could not legally retrieve it. … ([It’s] a second-degree misdemeanor to enter an unoccupied conveyance without authorization.) Moreover, he left the bag under the control of a third party, Ortiz, whom he did not know or have any control over and in a place which gave that third party the ability and legal right to seize the bag, open it, and examine its contents. As the owner of the vehicle in which the bag was left and the property on which the vehicle was located, Ortiz had the legal right to seize and examine any property that was left within her vehicle without her permission.” Hargrove v. State, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 3029 (Fla. 6th DCA Apr. 19, 2024).

Subjective intentions of police are irrelevant. Defendant’s window tint violation justified his stop. State v. Hall, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 3032 (Fla. 6th DCA Apr. 19, 2024).*

The officer here saw six to eight hand to hand drug transactions, and thus had probable cause to arrest. The patdown was permissible. People v. Williams, 2024 NY Slip Op 01389, 2024 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1379 (4th Dept. Mar. 15, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Pretext, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.