Florida v. Jimeno

Florida v. Jimeno

Argued March 25, 1991
Decided May 23, 1991
Full case name Florida v. Enio Jimeno
Citations

500 U.S. 248 (more)

111 S.Ct. 1801; 114 L. Ed. 2d 297
Holding
Jimeno's consent to the search of the car did extend to the closed paper bag within the car, and did not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Case opinions
Majority Rehnquist, joined by White, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter
Dissent Marshall, joined by Stevens

Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991), was a US Supreme Court case involving the exclusionary rule of evidence.[1][2]

Background

A police officer pulled over Jimeno for a traffic violation after following him due to information that he may have been involved in a drug deal. Jimeno consented to a search of his car, but nothing more. The officer opened up a package and found cocaine inside. At court Jimeno argued that his consent to search his car did not extend to his permission to search within containers and packages. The lower court and the Florida Supreme Court upheld that Jimeno's consent did not cover the officer's efforts and thus ruled in Jimeno's favor. The State of Florida appealed to the United States Supreme Court.[1][2]

Case

The state intended to prove that the actions of the police officer did not violate his 4th amendment rights of protection against unreasonable searches. The court considered if it was reasonable for an officer to search containers within a car when given permission to search the car. A key piece of information is that the officer informed Jimeno that he suspected him of containing drugs in the car.[1][2]

Decision

In a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court overturned the lower courts' decision and ruled that the officer's search of containers within the car were not considered unreasonable. Since a reasonable person would expect narcotics to be carried in a container, and because the officer told Jimeno of his suspicions, the court ruled the officer acted within reason. Jimeno was thus found guilty and the officer was not in violation of the 4th amendment.[1][2]

Significance

This case grants law enforcement greater ability and liberty to conduct searches. It also narrows the definition of unreasonable searches and thus limits the protection citizens can seek against such searches. Evidence cannot be excluded from a case if it is deemed to have been discovered through reasonable means.[1][2]

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 "FLORIDA v. JIMENO". Oyez. 1991.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 "FLORIDA v. JIMENO et al.". Legal Information Institute. Cornell University.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Tuesday, February 03, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.