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.
A police officer pulled over Enio 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 had informed Jimeno that he suspected him of having drugs in the car.[1][2] The officer opened up a package and found cocaine inside. At trial, 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]
Opinion of the Courtedit
In a 7-2 vote, the 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 that the officer acted within reason. Jimeno was thus found guilty and the officer was not in violation of the 4th amendment.[1][2]
Significanceedit
This case grants law enforcement greater ability 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]
Text of Florida v. Jimeno, 500U.S. 248 (1991) is available from:CornellGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
January 01, 1970
florida, jimeno, 1991, supreme, court, case, involving, exclusionary, rule, evidence, under, fourth, amendment, supreme, court, united, statesargued, march, 1991decided, 1991full, case, nameflorida, enio, jimenocitations500, more, 1801, 297holdingjimeno, conse. Florida v Jimeno 500 U S 248 1991 was a U S Supreme Court case involving the exclusionary rule of evidence under the Fourth Amendment 1 2 Florida v JimenoSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued March 25 1991Decided May 23 1991Full case nameFlorida v Enio JimenoCitations500 U S 248 more 111 S Ct 1801 114 L Ed 2d 297HoldingJimeno 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 membershipChief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White Thurgood MarshallHarry Blackmun John P StevensSandra Day O Connor Antonin ScaliaAnthony Kennedy David SouterCase opinionsMajorityRehnquist joined by White Blackmun O Connor Scalia Kennedy SouterDissentMarshall joined by StevensLaws appliedU S Const amend IV Contents 1 Background 2 Opinion of the Court 3 Significance 4 References 5 External linksBackground editA police officer pulled over Enio 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 had informed Jimeno that he suspected him of having drugs in the car 1 2 The officer opened up a package and found cocaine inside At trial 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 Opinion of the Court editIn a 7 2 vote the 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 that the officer acted within reason Jimeno was thus found guilty and the officer was not in violation of the 4th amendment 1 2 Significance editThis case grants law enforcement greater ability 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 edit a b c d e FLORIDA v JIMENO Oyez 1991 a b c d e Florida v Jimeno 500 U S 248 1991 External links editText of Florida v Jimeno 500 U S 248 1991 is available from Cornell Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Florida v Jimeno amp oldid 1175142436, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,