Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Gen., and Lee Mandell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee. BOYD, Justice. This cause is before the Court on appeal from judgments of the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, in and for Hamilton County. The court passed upon the constitutionality of section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1977). On January 16, 1978, Wayne Denehy and Michael Pitoscia, travelling in a pick-up truck with a camper mounted on the bed, passed an agricultural inspection station without stopping for inspection as required by section 570.15(2), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...The deputy sheriff found cannabis in the truck and arrested the appellants for possession. The appellants moved to dismiss the information and to suppress evidence, contending that they were stopped on the authority of an unconstitutional statute, section 570.15, and that the warrantless search of the truck was unlawful....

...The judge believed the officer rather than the appellants, and denied the motions. After the denial of their motions, the appellants entered pleas of nolo contendere to the charge of possession in excess of one hundred pounds, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motions. The appellants contend that section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1977), denies equal protection by establishing a classification having no rational basis....

...Pursuant to the cases discussed herein, we have determined that even if Pease was in violation of the dual officeholding prohibition, he was acting within his jurisdiction when he carried out the duties of his office, i.e., stopping appellants for bypassing an agricultural inspection station. § 570.15, Fla....

...[5] We observe that there is no dispute concerning whether Inspector Pease was otherwise duly qualified to act as an agricultural inspection officer on May 17, 1978. Compare Holloway v. State, 342 So.2d 966 (Fla. 1977), and cases cited therein. See also, § 570.151, Fla....

...BOYD, Justice. These consolidated cases are before the Court on appeal from judgments rendered by the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, in and for Hamilton County. In rendering the judgments the circuit court passed upon the constitutionality of section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1977) and (Supp....

...excess of five grams, both being offenses prohibited by section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1977). After pleading not guilty, the appellant moved to dismiss the information and to suppress evidence. Thereby he challenged both the constitutionality of section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1977), and the legality of the search performed after a highway stop executed pursuant to that statute....

...ession of cannabis in excess of one hundred pounds with intent to sell and possession of cannabis in excess of five grams. After pleading not guilty, the appellants moved to suppress evidence. In their motion they challenged the constitutionality of section 570.15, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...possession of cannabis in excess of one hundred pounds with intent to sell and possession of cannabis in excess of five grams. *196 After pleading not guilty, the appellants moved to suppress evidence. The motion challenged the constitutionality of section 570.15, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...The inspector then required Gluesenkamp and Cain to return in the van to the inspection station. At the inspection station the appellant again refused to allow the inspector to look inside the van. The inspector arrested Cain for passing the station without first stopping for inspection, a misdemeanor proscribed by section 570.15(2), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...ly 20, 1978, and they proceeded past an agricultural inspection station. An inspection officer went after and stopped them, and asked them to return to the station. The inspector arrested Massengale for failing to stop for inspection in violation of section 570.15(2), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...tion officer back to the station. There appellant Mouw opened the van. The inspector observed a large compartment built into the bed of the vehicle. He saw cannabis seeds on the floor and smelled cannabis. He arrested the appellants for violation of section 570.15, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978). Then the vehicle was searched pursuant to warrant and over three hundred pounds of cannabis were found in the compartment. All of the appellants in these consolidated cases challenge the constitutionality of section 570.15, requiring all trucks to stop at agricultural inspection stations, and question the statute's applicability to them on the ground that their vans are not trucks within the meaning of the statute. Each appellant argues that if the initial apprehensions pursuant to the statute were thus unlawful, the evidence subsequently seized is the fruit of such illegality and the convictions cannot stand. Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1977), provides: 570.15....

...Trucks, truck trailers, and motor vehicle trailers are required to stop in order for the department officials to determine whether they have a right of access, and, if so, whether to exercise it. The appellants argue that their vans are not trucks within the meaning of section 570.15(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978). "Truck" is not defined in section 570.15 or anywhere in chapter 570....

...It is the design, maintenance, and actual use of a van-type vehicle that determine whether it is a truck. Vans designed to carry cargo are trucks and are required to stop at agricultural inspection stations. Vans designed as passenger vehicles are not. § 570.15 Fla....

...ger automobiles and other motor vehicles. The seventh enumerated clause of subsection (1)(a) provides for inspection access to: Motor vehicles, other than private passenger automobiles with no trailer in tow or any vehicle bearing an RV license tag; § 570.15(1)(a)7., Fla. Stat. (1977). [1] We conclude that in each of these cases, the appellants' vans came within the meaning of the word "truck" as used in section 570.15(2) because they were not being used as passenger vehicles as contemplated by the statute. Therefore, they were required to stop. The appellants also present the closely related argument that section 570.15(2), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...ice, to apprise ordinary persons of common intelligence of what conduct will render them liable to be prosecuted for its violation. State v. Ashcraft, 378 So.2d 284 (Fla. 1979); Brock v. Hardie, 114 Fla. 670, 154 So. 690 (1934). As was stated above, section 570.15(1)(a), in providing the conditions for agricultural inspection access, demonstrates a legislative purpose to distinguish between vehicles carrying goods and vehicles carrying passengers....

...Furthermore, the above-quoted statutory definitions of "truck" in chapters 316, 320, and 323, Florida Statutes (1977), provide authoritative definitions and indicate what is the generally accepted definition of the word "truck." *199 We conclude that the offense defined in section 570.15(2) is not vaguely expressed by virtue of any indefiniteness of the term "truck." Furthermore, ordinary persons of common intelligence can conclude from the statute that van-type vehicles that are designed, maintained, or used for the purpose of transporting goods rather than passengers are included in the meaning of the word "truck" as used in section 570.15(2). Appellant Gluesenkamp argues that section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1977), violates principles of equal protection and equality of treatment under the United States and Florida Constitutions....

...hile others are not. Subsection (2), as we have seen, creates a distinction between trucks, truck trailers, and motor vehicle trailers on the one hand and passenger vehicles on the other. The appellant also points out that at the time of his arrest, section 570.15(1)(a)7....

...He argues that it is improper to exclude from the inspection requirement vehicles with license tags bearing the recreational vehicle designation, and points to evidence that it is a simple matter to obtain such a tag and to display it on a vehicle used for transporting goods. As was discussed previously, section 570.15(1)(a) provides for "access" by various department officials to all of the enumerated places and conveyances that are "used" in any phase of the agriculture industry....

...We think, however, that the required stop for inspection is not an unreasonable seizure. Stephenson v. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 342 So.2d 60 (Fla. 1976). And after a vehicle has stopped for inspection, a search may be conducted only under certain circumstances. Section 570.15(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1977), provides: If such access be refused by the ......

...cles without a warrant pursuant to s. 933.19. The fourth amendment rights of users of the highways are protected under the statute. Compare Bagocus v. State, 359 So.2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), with Powell v. State, 332 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Section 570.15 is a regulation of transportation and the use of the highways of the state....

...l basis. See, e.g., Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374, 52 S.Ct. 581, 76 L.Ed. 1167 (1932); Continental Baking Co. v. Woodring, 286 U.S. 352, 52 S.Ct. 595, 76 L.Ed. 1155 (1932). Applying the conventional standard, we hold that the distinction drawn by section 570.15 between vehicles designed, maintained, or used for the carriage of property on the one hand and passenger vehicles on the other is reasonably related to the Department of Agriculture's inspection functions and does not violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution or the equality guaranty of the Florida Constitution. As has been recited above, the searches in cases no. 56,928 and no. 57,131, following pursuit and apprehension for violation of section 570.15(2), were based on consent or a warrant....

...Since the agricultural inspector and law enforcement officer were refused access to Gluesenkamp's van and a search warrant was not obtained prior to conducting the search, the issue in this case is whether the search was properly conducted without a warrant pursuant to section 933.19, Florida Statutes (1977). § 570.15(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ENGLAND and McDONALD, JJ., concur. ALDERMAN, J., concurs specially with an opinion. ALDERMAN, Justice, concurring specially. Although I concur with the majority opinion construing and upholding the constitutionality of section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1977), and defining trucks to include a certain type of van, I note that an inspector will not be able generally to discern from the outside appearance of a van passing on the highway whether it falls within the definition of truck and, consequently, is required to stop for inspection, or whether the van is excluded from the provisions of section 570.15 because it is a noncargo, passenger carrying van....

...If it is determined that the van is a cargo van, the inspector can request that it be opened for inspection. If, while looking into the van, the inspector sees contraband in plain view, he then has probable cause to seize the contraband even if the van is a passenger van and not a truck as defined by section 570.15. NOTES [1] Chapter 78-180, Laws of Florida, amended the seventh enumerated clause of section 570.15(1)(a), effective June 8, 1978, to read: Motor vehicles, except private passenger automobiles with no trailer in tow, travel trailers, camping trailers, and motor homes as defined in s. 320.01(1)(b); § 570.15(1)(a)7., Fla....

...The search revealed marijuana and Delegal called the sheriff. The officers had no probable cause to believe that appellant was carrying marijuana or any other contraband. While the agricultural inspection law which was in effect at the time of this incident, § 570.15, Florida Statutes 1973, purportedly authorizes search of motor vehicles used in transportation of any agricultural product, it provides that if such access is refused, the inspector may apply for a search warrant "which shall be obtained as...

...Here the appellant acquiesced to the search only after the inspector (1) arrested him for bypassing the station, (2) stated that he had the authority to search with or without appellant's permission (which authority he did not have in the absence of a warrant, see Powell, supra, and Section 570.15(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1975)) and (3) made repeated requests for the consent....

...Deputy Tucker then testified that Aldridge told him that the appellants had told her that they thought a grassy material was in the bags. Appellants were found guilty, and this appeal followed. The fourth amendment condemns unreasonable, warrantless searches and seizures. Section 570.15(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1981) makes provision for agricultural inspectors to obtain search warrants for regulatory inspection....

...Appellant contends the search was conducted without his consent. We agree and reverse. Villari, driving a pick-up truck, was stopped by agricultural inspector Leonard Pease, after having passed the station without stopping as he is required to do. Section 570.15(2), Fla....

...huh" or "Okay." Pease left and called his supervisor to be certain he could search the remaining cargo area. He returned and lifted the blanket covering several large bags. He then smelled the strong odor of marijuana, arrested Villari for violating § 570.15(2), and called Deputy Jones who placed Villari under arrest for possession of cannabis after the bags were opened and found to contain marijuana. We again have before us the task of determining whether or not the state has clearly established consent to the search of a truck so as to obviate the necessity for a search warrant under § 570.15(1)(b), Fla....

...By his question, Villari indicated that he did not voluntarily consent to the search of his truck beyond the flashlight search which had already been made. At this point, in the absence of consent, further search necessitated the issuance of a search warrant pursuant to § 570.15(1)(b), Fla....

...Our constitutional safeguards, while *594 that may at times provide an escape for the guilty, are for the protection of decent, law abiding citizens whose forebears established this nation to escape tyranny and police state methods. The statute in effect at the time of this search, § 570.15, Florida Statutes 1973, authorized certain inspection of "all places of business, factories, farm buildings, carriages, railroad cars, motor vehicles and vessels used in the production, manufacture, storage, sales or transportation within t...

...ppellants' presumption of innocence. The judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for the Trial Court's discharge of the Appellants. BOYER, C.J., concurs. RAWLS, J., specially concurs. RAWLS, Judge (specially concurring). Florida Statute 570.15 (1973) was effective at the time appellants failed to stop at the inspection station....

...knowledge of possession of the contraband may be inferred. An opposite result might well obtain if the present enactment relating to agricultural inspection stations survives constitutional scrutiny. NOTES [1] Compare then in effect Florida Statute 570.15 (1973) with House Bill 1222, Chapter 75-215, Laws of Florida 1975.

...ong odor of marijuana and observed a black plastic garbage bag which was known by the inspector to often contain contraband. The inspector properly ordered Flynn back to the agricultural inspection station and arrested him for bypassing the station. § 570.15, Fla....

...State, 378 So.2d 879 (Fla.1st DCA 1979). Additionally, we do not agree appellant was illegally stopped on the ground his vehicle was a "camping trailer", as defined by Section 3 20.01(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1977), and therefore excluded from agricultural inspection under Section 570.15(1)(a)(7), Florida Statutes (1977)....

...ROBERTS, Justice. We have for review by direct appeal the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in Stephenson et al. v. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services reported at 329 So.2d 373, which passes on the constitutional validity of Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1975), thereby vesting jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution....

...within the police power of the state to cause to stop for inspection all trucks operating on the public highways.'" The statutes under consideration authorizing appellee to require appellants' trucks to stop for agricultural inspections are Sections 570.15 (which was amended after the trial court's order) and 570.44(3), Florida Statutes....

...— It shall be the duty of this bureau to operate and manage those road guard inspection stations of the state and to perform the general inspection activities relating to the movement of agricultural, horticultural, and livestock products and commodities as directed by the department and the division director. "570.15 Access to places of business and vehicles....

...The inspections are necessary in order that appellee may carry out its responsibilities relating to disease control, fruit and vegetable grading and other similar matters required by law, appellee's regulations and federal marketing orders. Under subsection (2) of section 570.15 above, all trucks and motor vehicle trailers [not limited to those mentioned in subsection (1)] are required to stop at appellee's road-guard inspection stations for inspection....

...er point he testified that he smelled it after he placed the call to the state attorney. In either case, it is uncontradicted that Nobles told Seuss that he could obtain the authority to search prior to his smelling what he thought to be contraband. Section 570.15(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1977), provides that if the owner or driver refuses to consent to access to a vehicle and there are no exigent circumstances, the inspector must obtain a search warrant before searching the vehicle....

...al officer" within the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the "Department"). See ch. 75-215, § 2, Laws of Fla. Originally, such officers were granted power and authority to make arrests, with or without warrants as provided in s. 570.15, for violations of law committed within the jurisdiction of s. 570.15 .. . and ... the right and authority to carry arms while on duty, provided such officers shall meet the requirements of the Police Standards and Training Commission... . § 570.151(2), Fla. Stat. (1975). In 1988, the legislature approved amendments that seemed to expand the laws road guard inspection special officers are authorized to enforce. See ch. 88-341, § 3, Laws of Fla. The amendments, codified at section 570.151(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), provide in pertinent part: All such special officers shall have power and authority to make arrests, with or without warrants as provided in s. 570.15 and all other laws relating to livestock, citrus and citrus products, tomatoes, limes, avocados, plants, and other horticultural products and any section with respect to which any authority is conferred by law on the department....

...ntent that it have no meaning, unless this is the only possible construction. [2] Snively Groves, Inc. v. Mayo, 135 Fla. 300, 184 So. 839 (1938). The statute at hand empowers road guard inspection special officers to make arrests as provided in: (1) section 570.15; (2) "all other laws relating to livestock, citrus and citrus products, tomatoes, limes, avocados, plants, and other horticultural products"; and (3) "any section with respect to which any authority is conferred by law on the department." § 570.151(2), Fla....

...The question we must decide, then, is the scope of the topics embraced by the specific listing and their relation to the general terminology that concludes the list. From this parsing of the statute, it is readily apparent that the legislature regarded section 570.15 as a statute "relating to livestock, citrus and citrus products, tomatoes, limes, avocados, plants, and other horticultural products." The reference to "other" similar statutes compels this reading. Moreover, section 570.15 itself supports no other possible conclusion, since the detention powers it grants deal with the authority to detain persons for failing to submit to inspections for agricultural, horticultural, and livestock products. § 570.15, Fla. Stat. (1987). It also is apparent that this specific listing is intended to be exhaustive. It is a reference statute that embraces both section 570.15 and "all other laws" dealing with agricultural materials in general, including horticultural products and livestock. Thus, we believe the rules of construction outlined above require that the doctrine of ejusdem generis not be applied in this instance. To do so would render meaningless that portion of section 570.151(2) conferring authority to make arrests under "any section with respect to which any authority is conferred by law on the department." The construction urged by the Department embraces only those topics already listed, which thus renders the final clause meaningless....

...utes (Supp. 1988). This is the only reading that vests the final clause with a meaning, and it is plainly consistent with the statutory language. Road guard inspection special officers clearly are "law enforcement officers," as both parties concede. Section 570.151(2) embraces any statute conferring arrest-making authority on such officers. Therefore, road guard inspection special officers have all the authority to make arrests that is conferred by section 901.15(11). As a result, the final clause of section 570.151(2) is construed so as to have an effect. This reading finds some support in the general history of legislation that emerged from the 1988 legislature, when section 570.151(2) was expanded to its present form....

...e. Finally, we are mindful of our recent holding in State v. Parsons, 569 So.2d 437 (Fla. 1990). There, we stated in dictum that specific statutes are regarded as exceptions to inconsistent general statutes. It is possible, at first blush, to regard section 570.151(2) as a specific statute that somehow creates an exception to the more general statutory language employed in section 901.15(11). The Department urges us to conclude that section 570.151(2) does in fact create such an exception by "limiting" the authority of road guard inspection special officers....

...istency between the general and the specific statutes. After finding the doctrine of ejusdem generis inapplicable here, we then necessarily conclude that no such hopeless inconsistency exists in the present case. In order to give all the language of section 570.151(2) effect, we must regard that statute as embracing the general grant of authority contained in section 901.15(11)....

...is within the police powers of the state to cause to stop for inspection all trucks operating on the public highways." The statutes which purportedly authorized appellee to require appellants' trucks to stop for agricultural inspection are Sections 570.15 and 570.44(3), Florida Statutes. Subsequent to the entry of the trial court's order appealed from, Section 570.15, Florida Statutes, was amended....

...— It shall be the duty of this bureau to operate and manage those road guard inspection stations of the state and to perform the general inspection activities relating to the movement of agricultural, horticultural, and livestock products and commodities as directed by the department and the division director." § 570.15, Florida Statutes, 1975, provides in pertinent part as follows: "(1)(a) The commissioner, assistant commissioner, directors, counsel, experts, chemists, agents, inspectors, road-guard inspection special officers, and other employees and off...

...The inspections are necessary in order that appellee may carry out its responsibilities relating to disease control, fruit and vegetable grading and other similar matters required by law, appellee's regulations and federal marketing orders. Under subsection (2) of section 570.15 above, all trucks and motor vehicle trailers [not limited to those mentioned in subsection (1)] are required to stop at appellee's road-guard inspection stations for inspection....

...*170 Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Miguel A. Olivella, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee. ADKINS, Justice. This is a direct appeal from the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, in and for Hamilton County which held constitutional section 570.15, Florida Statutes (Supp....

...After denial of his Motion to Dismiss and Suppress, defendant pleaded nolo contendere to the charge, reserving his right to appeal the denial of the motion. He was thereafter sentenced to four years imprisonment and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine. This appeal followed. Defendant first argues that section 570.15 "is unconstitutional in that it arbitrarily distinguishes between passenger and recreational vehicles on the one hand, and all other vehicles on the other, with no rational basis related to the purported purpose of the statutory scheme — the regulation of agricultural products." We specifically held otherwise in our opinion in Gluesenkamp v. State, 391 So.2d 192, 200 (Fla. 1980): Applying the conventional standard, we hold that the distinction drawn by section 570.15 between vehicles designed, maintained, or used for the carriage of property on the one hand and passenger vehicles on the other is reasonably related to the Department of Agriculture's inspection functions and does not violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution or the equality guaranty of the Florida Constitution. Defendant also contends that section 570.15 "is unconstitutional in that it fails to give sufficient notice as to which vehicles are covered by the statutory provisions for inspection, especially when applied to van-type vehicles ..." Again, as with defendant's first argument, we held to the contrary in Gluesenkamp, when we stated: We conclude that the offense defined in section 570.15(2) is not vaguely expressed by virtue of any indefiniteness of the term "truck." Furthermore, ordinary persons of common intelligence can conclude from the statute that van-type vehicles that are designed, maintained, or used for the purpose of transporting goods rather than passengers are included *171 in the meaning of the word "truck" as used in section 570.15(2). Id. at 199. Our opinion in Gluesenkamp is also relevant to the argument in defendant's third point on appeal — that his van was excepted from the provisions of section 570.15 and so the detention and search complained of were illegal. Defendant notes that § 570.15(1)(a) gives agricultural inspectors full access to "[m]otor vehicles, except private passenger automobiles with no trailer in tow, travel trailers, camping trailers, and motor homes as defined in s. 320.01(1)(b)" (emphasis added), and that § 570.15(2) makes it unlawful for a truck to pass an inspection station without stopping for inspection. He then contends that his van was customized in such a fashion that it clearly is a motorhome, as defined in § 320.01(1)(b) and thus was exempt from the provisions of §§ 570.15(1)(a)7 and 570.15(2)....

...Vans designed to carry cargo are trucks and are required to stop at agricultural inspection stations. Vans designed as passenger vehicles are not. Id. at 198. In light of the above analysis, it was reasonable for the trial court to find that defendant's van is a truck as that term is used in § 570.15....

...State, 322 So.2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Powell v. State, 332 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Gonterman v. State, 358 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In these cases, we have made it clear that a search warrant must be obtained in accordance with the statutory provisions of Section 570.15(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1977) where there are no exigent circumstances, consent is not offered voluntarily, and there is no probable cause to suspect that the vehicle contains contraband....

...s further permission. Further, appellant here implicated himself in no way on the return trip to the inspection station. As this court recently noted in Miller v. State, 368 So.2d 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), the agricultural inspection station statute, Section 570.15, is "ripe for legislative consideration." In the absence of further legislative guidance, however, we believe that the warrantless search of the contents of the vehicle in the circumstances here was improper and must be invalidated....

...1954, 75 So.2d 291, appellants assert that when Inspector Davis told appellants that they had to return to the inspection station with him, appellants were under "arrest". Second, appellants argue that said arrest was unlawful in that Inspector Davis had no authority, either express or implied, under F.S. 570.15 (1973) to arrest appellants....

...The subsequent inventory search which revealed the small plastic bottle of cocaine was also valid. ( State v. Cash, Fla.App. 1st 1973, 275 So.2d 605). Affirmed. RAWLS and McCORD, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] There is some authority for appellants' position on this point. F.S. 570.151 (1975) gives agricultural inspection station officers express authority to make arrests while F.S. 570.15 (1973) did not....

...We reverse the convictions and remand the defendants for a new trial. Accompanied by brother Michael as his passenger, John Lornitis drove an Illinois-licensed pickup truck with camper top past a Florida agricultural inspection station in Hamilton County without stopping for the required inspection. Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...The inspectors contacted the highway patrol and the sheriff's office. Shortly thereafter, Sharpe was taken into custody. A deputy drove the truck from the inspection station to the jail, where the truck was searched and the cannabis discovered. Sharpe contends that despite the requirement of Florida Statute section 570.15(1)(a) that specified vehicles stop at agricultural inspection stations, the inspectors must allow such vehicles to pass uninspected absent a reasonable suspicion that agricultural products are being transported....

...Finally, he contends that he did not abandon his truck and therefore the search carried out by the sheriff's officers was illegal because it was done without a search warrant and without his valid consent. We must disagree with Sharpe's reasoning. Florida Statute 570.15 provides in pertinent part as follows: "(1)(a) The commissioner, assistant commissioner, directors, counsel, experts, chemists, agents, inspectors, road-guard inspection special officers, and other employees and officers of the department shall have full access at all reasonable hours to all: * * * * * * 6....

...(2) It shall be unlawful for any truck or any truck or motor vehicle trailer to pass any official road-guard inspection station without first stopping for inspection. A violation of this subsection shall constitute a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083." Section 570.151 provides as follows: "The department may appoint road-guard inspection special officers of sufficient number to carry out the duties of the department relating to road-guard inspection as prescribed in this section. Said officers shall be known as road-guard inspection special officers ... * * * * * * All such special officers shall have power and authority to make arrests, with or without warrants as provided in s. 570.15, for violations of law committed within the jurisdiction of s. 570.15 to the same extent and under the same limitations and duties as do peace officers under the provisions of chapter 901, and all such special officers shall have the right and authority to carry arms while on duty, provided such officers shal...

...of Agriculture and Consumer Services] may carry out its responsibilities relating to disease control, fruit and vegetable grading and other similar matters required by law, appellee's regulations and federal marketing orders. Under subsection (2) of section 570.15 above, all trucks and motor vehicle trailers [not limited to those mentioned in subsection (1)] are required to stop at appellee's road-guard inspection stations for inspection....

...lition, State v. Drake, 343 So.2d 1336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), and that his arrest was lawful following his having fled the scene after an inspection of the truck began. City of Miami v. Nelson, 186 So.2d 535 (Fla.3d DCA 1966); Florida Statute sections 570.151, 901.15....

...Sub judice, Drake argues that even if it is determined that Grayville gave a valid consent to search the truck, the search of Drake's pack by Creech was unreasonable because the search exceeded the scope of the consent given. Under that theory, Grayville's consent is limited to a search for agricultural products pursuant to Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1975) and did not extend to a search of Drake's personal luggage....

...The record fails to support the allegation that the search was for anything other than to discover agricultural products. Creech's unrefuted testimony was that as he touched Drake's pack, he felt therein hay, seed, or some horticulture substance. Under Section 570.15(1)(c), Creech was empowered to "examine and open any package or container of any kind containing or believed to contain any article or product which may be transported, manufactured, sold, or exposed for sale in violation of the provisions of this chapter......

...Permission to search having been again refused, the back door of said camper was broken open and was searched. The contraband referred to was found. At the time of the occurrences referred to, the applicable law of Florida with reference to the right of inspection officers to have access to motor vehicles was stated in Section 570.15(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1977), wherein it is provided that the Commissioner and his various designated officers and agents: "... shall have full access at all reasonable hours to all: * * * * * * 7. Motor vehicles, other than private passenger automobiles with no trailer in tow or any vehicle bearing an RV license tag;" (emphasis supplied) Section 570.15(1)(b) provides, in substance, if the owner or person in charge of a vehicle subject to such inspection shall refuse the officer the right to inspect, then the officer may apply for a search warrant as is provided by law relating to the...

...The provisions of Section 933.19 are not applicable as there was a complete absence of any probable cause to suspect that the motor vehicle apprehended was carrying any contraband. We note that the RV license tag vehicle referred to in subsection (7) was wisely eliminated from the provisions of Section 570.15 by Florida Statutes (1978)....

...If the Florida Legislature desires to authorize permanent checkpoint stops for drugs on the arterial highways of this state because of the seriousness of drug trafficking, [3] nothing prevents it from doing so — just as it has done in regard to combatting plant and animal diseases. See § 570.15, Fla....

...to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. Pederson alleges that the search warrant which was issued violated constitutional and statutory prerequisites because the warrant was not based upon probable cause. U.S.Const. Amend. IV; § 570.15(1)(b), Fla....

...ed without stopping at the station. Inspector Pease stopped Pederson and requested permission to inspect the cargo in the truck. Pederson refused and both men returned to the inspection station where the defendant was formally arrested for violating Section 570.15(2)....

...[1] *369 The search warrant authorized the Florida Department of Agriculture or any of its duly constituted agents to search Pederson's vehicle for agricultural products kept in violation of Chapter 570 and the laws pertaining to the transportation of agricultural products. Appellant argues that Section 570.15(1)(b), referring to Section 933.19, incorporates the criminal probable cause test as stated in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), for the issuance of any search warrant under the statute. Section 570.15(1)(b) states: If such access be refused by the owner, agent, or manager of such premises or by the driver of such aforesaid vehicle, the inspector or road-guard inspection special officer may apply for a search warrant which shall be o...

...or agricultural products. However, the state argues that only administrative probable cause need be established for the type of search warrant involved here. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). We disagree. Section 570.15(1)(b) refers not only to the criminal probable cause standard in warrantless cases, but provides that a search warrant shall be obtained as provided by law for the obtaining of search warrants in other cases....

...rative probable cause standard in Camara apply to agricultural inspections. Contrast Heinlein v. Metropolitan Dade County, 239 So.2d 635 (Fla.3d DCA 1970). In the past, this court has impliedly recognized that the probable cause standard intended by Section 570.15(1)(b) is one of traditional probable cause. Seuss v. State, 370 So.2d 1203 (Fla.1st DCA 1979); Miller v. State, 368 So.2d 943 (Fla.1st DCA 1979); Powell v. State, 332 So.2d 105 (Fla.1st DCA 1976). Accordingly, we are bound to interpret the warrant requirement contained in Section 570.15 in accordance with the statute's clear meaning....

...spection stations of the state and to perform the general inspection activities relating to the movement of agricultural, horticultural, and livestock products ..." The second statute, which is the one attacked in this litigation, is Florida Statute § 570.15 (1981): 570.15 Access to places of business and vehicles....

...On the other occasion the vehicle and its driver were release after being detained approximately two and a half hours; no warrant was obtained and no search was conducted. These five detentions (and four searches) occurred during 1979 before a more recent amendment of Florida Statute § 570.15 to its present form as previously quoted....

...ida Statutes, were performed and carried out and will continue to be performed and carried out in the future if not enjoined by this Court ..." Accordingly, the record discloses, and I find, that the Department is engaged pursuant to Florida Statute § 570.15 in a continuing program of conducting random stops and searches of motor vehicles, other than passenger cars and motor homes, for the purpose of enforcing the regulatory laws within its jurisdiction; but, due to the magnitude of the task, m...

...inspection are satisfied"; or the inspection is made "pursuant to an administrative plan containing specific neutral criteria." That conclusion is of little comfort to the Department in this case, however, because it cannot be said that the statute, Section 570.15, or any existing administrative regulation, provide "reasonable standards" or "neutral criteria" for selecting or searching those few vehicles which are actually searched....

...ull exploratory search of any truck, trailer or van whose owner refuses to consent. It might be argued that Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc . is applicable only with respect to administrative searches conducted without a warrant, and since Florida Statute § 570.15 requires a warrant upon the operator's refusal to give consent, the mandate of the Fourth Amendment is satisfied....

...ant; and it proceeded to describe the kind of probable cause which must be demonstrated. Indeed, in the case of motor vehicles as distinguished from real property like that involved in Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc ., the Fourth Amendment (as opposed to Section 570.15) will accommodate warrantless searches so long as probable cause exists....

...contained in traditional warrants. " (Emphasis supplied). It must also be remembered that the Fourth Amendment itself provides that "no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause ..." I therefore conclude, in summary, that neither Florida Statute § 570.15 nor any existing administrative regulation provide "reasonable legislative or administrative standards," or "specific neutral criteria," for the guidance of Road Guards in the selection of vehicles to be searched, or for the guidance of jud...

...o contendere reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Points 1 and 5 merit brief discussion. As to Point 1, which raises several arguments, it was proper for Inspector Pease to stop Mahla's truck and to request inspection. § 570.15, Fla....

...(1977); Sharpe v. State, 370 So.2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Further, although Pease smelled marijuana during the inspection, he retained authority to subsequently arrest Mahla, and to seize him and the truck, for bypassing the agricultural inspection station. § 570.15(2), Fla....

...1972). As to Point 5, although it was technically improper to have a blanket bond rather than an individual bond cover Pease, the bond substantially complied with the statutory prerequisites and therefore Pease lawfully performed his duties thereunder. § 570.151(1), Fla....

...He was stopped by a Hamilton County deputy sheriff and ordered to return for inspection. At the station, an agricultural inspector discovered a locked compartment which Roche refused to open. The inspector neither saw nor smelled marijuana. Nonetheless, he procured a regulatory search warrant, pursuant to section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1980), and upon opening the compartment, discovered more than five hundred pounds of marijuana....

...The district court of appeal affirmed the trial court's decision. In his petition for rehearing, Roche directed the court's attention to Lake Butler Apparel Co. v. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 551 F. Supp. 901 (M.D.Fla. 1982), in which the United States District Court had declared section 570.15, Florida Statutes, unconstitutional. The First District Court of Appeal adhered to its original affirmance, but certified the *1098 following question as being of great public importance: DOES SECTION 570.15, FLORIDA STATUTES, VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IN THAT IT ALLOWS ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES WITHOUT A SHOWING OF `PROBABLE CAUSE' AND WITHOUT AN `ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN CONTAINING SPECIFIC NEUTRAL CRITERIA?' 447 So.2d at 891-92. Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1980) provides: 570.15 Access to places of business and vehicles....

...Turning, then, to the Florida statute, we hold that the statutory protective scheme contained in Chapters 573 through 581 sets forth with particularity the scope of inspection for particular diseased, defective or unlicensed products. [3] The searches authorized *1101 in section 570.15 are expressly limited to those necessary to implement the regulatory scheme and must be read in pari materia with the entire statutory plan....

...cceptable results," we think that the general administrative determination of the necessity for these baggage searches at the Honolulu airport satisfies the "probable cause" requirements of Camara. 461 F.2d at 859 (citations omitted). In the case of section 570.15, we find that the legislature has isolated specific threats to the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of this state, has recognized a class of private property which must be subject to regulatory searches in order to pr...

...ide the officers charged with the duty to inspect in identifying members of the delineated classes. The citizen is protected by the requirement of a warrant issued upon a showing that the regulatory scheme encompasses his property. We therefore find section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1980) to be constitutional and approve the decision of the district court of appeal. It is so ordered. *1102 BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] We note that section 570.15(1)(b) was amended in 1983 to provide "Such inspection will be conducted in accordance with the administrative standards, including specific neutral criteria, for conducting such inspection set forth by appropriate rules of the departme...

...The state argues that the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress can be justified on either of two theories: (1) stop and frisk, (2) plain view or open view. I. Stop and Frisk We premise our discussion of the subject with the observations that the agricultural inspector clearly had the authority pursuant to Section 570.15(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), to stop Raettig's truck....

...Moreover, the unique type of administrative detention involved here would permit the inspector to detain appellant for a longer period of time than merely to ask a few preliminary questions. Sharpe v. State, supra, at 44. And, although Deputy Tucker was not an authorized officer pursuant to Section 570.15, his participation in the detention as a deputy sheriff would not invalidate the appellant's detention. See Gryzik v. State, 380 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Cf. Section 570.15(3). Finally, because Sections 570.15(1)(b) and 570.15(1)(a)6 give the agricultural inspector a right to apply for a search warrant to search a stopped truck, it was not improper for Deputy Tucker to require appellant to bring his truck to the county jail for the purpose of conducting a more thorough inspection there....

...(Retired) and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Retired), Associate Judges, concur. NOTES [1] This two-fold test has been specifically followed by the Florida Supreme Court in two recent cases. See Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643 (Fla. 1980); State v. Brady, 406 So.2d 1093, (Fla. 1981). [2] Although, as noted, Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1979), has been construed as requiring the same probable cause standard applicable to searches in criminal cases, Pederson v....

...State, supra , there would appear to be no constitutional inhibition to the legislature amending the statute to provide for less exacting standards. See Camara v. Municipal Court. 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967). In fact, the legislature took such action in a special 1979 session, by amending Section 570.15(1)(b) and in effect, overruling Pederson....

...anating therefrom. Appellant informed Inspector Clark that he knew of no way into the compartment area and denied ownership of the vehicle. Inspector Clark, not satisfied with the search, thereupon obtained an agricultural search warrant pursuant to Section 570.15(l)(b), Florida Statutes....

...In Pederson v. State, 373 So.2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), this court recognized that it is “constitutionally permissible for the Legislature to impose an administrative probable cause standard for a warrant.” Shortly thereafter, the Legislature redrafted Section 570.15(l)(b), Florida Statutes, and deleted the requirement that criminal probable cause, as enunciated in Carroll v....

agricultural inspections and stops on the highways. Under § 570.15, Florida Statutes (1979),3 Department of Agriculture

...stopping for inspection. The inspector chased and stopped the vehicle, directed appellant to return to the station for inspection, arrested appellant for the misdemeanor of driving a truck past an inspection station, without stopping for inspection, Section 570.15(2), Florida Statutes (1977), and, with appellant’s consent — so found by the trial court on competent evidence — searched the vehicle, finding a quantity of marijuana for the possession of which appellant was here convicted and s...

...e., that it was a truck. We need not decide whether, as a matter of law, the vehicle was a truck. Nor must we decide whether there was competent evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that the vehicle was a truck. Appellant was not on trial for a violation of Section 570.15(2). Regardless of whether the vehicle was in fact and law a truck, so that appellant was guilty of driving a truck past the inspection point in violation of Section 570.15(2), there was probable cause for the inspector to believe it was a truck, and that appellant violated Section 570.15(2)....

PER CURIAM. Eden appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered in his vehicle by an agricultural inspector pursuant to Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1977), claiming (1) that the inspector had no authority under the statute to stop or inspect his vehicle, and (2) that he did not voluntarily consent to a search of his vehicle after it was stopped. We disagree on both points and affirm. Section 570.15(2) makes it unlawful for “any truck or any truck or motor vehicle trailer” to bypass an agricultural inspection station without stopping....

...of “trucks”, it is clear that appellant’s vehicle fit within that category rather than the excepted category of “private passenger automobiles with no trailer in tow, travel trailers, camping trailers, and motor homes . . . .” specified in Section 570.15(l)(a)(7), Florida Statutes (Supp....

opposed to cargo vehicles. Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1978). Section 570.15(l)(a) provides agricultural

...within the police powers of the state to cause to stop for inspection all trucks operating on the public highways.” The statutes which purportedly authorized appellee to require appellants’ trucks to stop for agricultural inspection are Sections 570.15 and 570.44(3), Florida Statutes. Subsequent to the entry of the trial court’s order appealed from, Section 570.15, Florida Statutes, was amended....

...— It shall be the duty of this bureau to operate and manage those road guard inspection stations of the state and to perform the general inspection activities relating to the movement of agricultural, horticultural, and livestock products and commodities as directed by the department and the division director.” § 570.15, Florida Statutes, 1975, provides in pertinent part as follows: “(l)(a) The commissioner, assistant commissioner, directors, counsel, experts, chemists, agents, inspectors, road-guard inspection special officers, and other employees and o...

...The inspections are necessary in order that appellee may carry out its responsibilities relating to disease control, fruit and vegetable grading and other similar matters required by law, appellee’s regulations and federal marketing orders. Under subsection (2) of section 570.15 above, all trucks and motor vehicle trailers [not limited to those mentioned in subsection (1)] are required to stop at appellee’s road-guard inspection stations for inspection....

...en opened the door of the camper, Delegal saw plastic bags containing a substance that he determined to be marijuana. Delegal testified that he requested appellant to accompany him back to the inspection station station to post bond for violation of § 570.15, Fla....

...Although, in this case, appellant’s account of the episode conflicted in part with Delegal’s testimony, there was sufficient competent evidence before the trial court to support a conclusion that the inspection agent, who was acting pursuant to § 570.15, Fla.Stat., did not make any demand to search but only requested that he be allowed to inspect the interior of the camper, at which time appellant actively cooperated....

...n the plastic bags contained therein. United States v. Ross, ___ U.S. ___, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d ___; State v. Zimmerman, 413 So.2d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), 7 F.L.W. 1023. AFFIRMED. ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and SHIVERS, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section 570.15(2), Florida Statutes (1979), makes it a misdemeanor of the second degree for any truck to pass any official road guard inspection station without first stopping for inspection.

...Appellant was stopped by a Road Guard Officer Haskell for bypassing an agricultural station driving a vehicle which the officer reasonably could believe was required to stop for a determination of whether it was a motor vehicle subject to inspection, pursuant to Section 570.15(1)(a)7, Florida Statutes (1981), Gluesenkamp v....

...conviction for trafficking in marijuana, citing the recent decision in Lake Butler Apparel Company v. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 551 F.Supp. 901 (M.D. Fla. 1982), wherein the federal district court held unconstitutional in part Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1981), dealing with agricultural inspection searches....

...o return with his vehicle to the inspection *283 station. 1 We find that the search itself, based upon a finding of probable cause supported by credible evidence, was valid. In the Lake Butler Apparel case, supra, the federal district court declared Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1981) unconstitutional only to the extent that it authorizes searches without probable cause” or even a “reasonable suspicion.” 2 Since the search of appellant’s vehicle in the instant case was based upon pro...

...3 The federal ruling likewise does not affect our affirmance of the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss the information, which was based in part on Fourth Amendment grounds. Motion for rehearing is, accordingly, denied. WENTWORTH and THOMPSON, JJ, concur. . Subsection 570.15(2), Florida Statutes (1981), provides that it is unlawful for the driver of an unexempted vehicle to pass any official road guard inspection station without first stopping and submitting the vehicle for inspection, and that a violation of this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the second degree. Section 570.15(3) authorizes law enforcement officers to assist in enforcement of subsection (2) and provides that they may stop and detain any vehicle and its driver who has failed to stop at an inspection station until an employee of the Department of Agriculture arrives to conduct the inspection....

...These portions of the statute have not been ruled unconstitutional by the federal district court in the Lake Butler Apparel case, supra. . In Lake Butler Apparel Company v. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 551 F.Supp. 901 (M.D.Fla.1982), the federal district court held that Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1981) is unconstitutional “to the extent that such statute purports to authorize searches of motor vehicles, with or without a warrant, upon the mere showing: (1) that the searching officer has reason to believe th...

...Webb could not open the door and Inspector Pease escorted her back to the station for further inspection. When she again tried to open the camper door, Inspector Pease smelled what he believed was marijuana and placed Ms. Webb under arrest for violation of Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...FORCEMENT POSITIONS FROM SEVERAL STATE AGENCIES HAVING SEVERAL DIFFERENT STATUTORY LAW ENFORCEMENT POWERS, WILL SUCH ACTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION NEGATE THE ABILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TO CARRY OUT ITS RESPONSIBILITY UNDER SECTION 570.15 , FLORIDA STATUTES? Your letter and information furnished with your opinion request indicate that there is some concern that the proposed consolidation of the classes of agricultural inspection officer and agricultural inspection officer supervisor with the more general classes of law enforcement officer and law enforcement sergeant could hinder these employees in the performance of their duties in making searches under s 570.15 , F.S....

...a class consolidation occurred which incorporated road guard inspection special officers into the class of agricultural inspection officers and road guard supervisors into the class of agricultural inspection officer supervisors. Therefore, while ss 570.15 and 570.151, F.S., continue to refer to "road guard inspection special officers," the individuals currently holding these positions are designated agricultural inspection officers. Initially, I consider it appropriate to note that the duties and powers of agricultural inspection officers (formerly road guard special inspection officers) are narrowly defined in Ch. 570 , F.S. Pursuant to the provisions of s 570.15 (1)(a), F.S., agricultural inspection officers and other specified officers and employees of the Department of Agriculture shall have full access at all reasonable hours to (among other things) all trucks, motor vehicles (except private passen...

...d by law on the department. Such officers are also granted full access to all records or documents pertaining to such vehicles. If access is refused to any vehicle which an agricultural inspection officer believes to be subject to inspection under s 570.15 , F.S., the officer may apply for, obtain and execute a search warrant for regulatory inspection after making, under oath, statements as set forth in this section. The provisions of Ch. 933 , F.S., relating to probable cause for the issuance of search warrants do not apply to search warrants for regulatory inspection. Section 570.15 (1)(b), F.S....

...anufactured, sold or exposed for sale in violation of Ch. 570 , F.S., the rules of the department or laws which the department enforces. Such officers may inspect the contents of any such package or container and take samples therefrom for analysis. Section 570.15 (1)(c), F.S. Pursuant to s 570.15 (2), F.S., it is unlawful for the driver of any vehicle (other than those exempted as described herein) to pass any official road guard inspection station without first stopping and submitting the vehicle for inspection. A violation of this provision constitutes a second degree misdemeanor. Section 570.151(2), F.S., in pertinent part reads as follows: All such special officers (now agricultural inspection officers) shall have power and authority to make arrests, with or without warrants as provided in s. 570.15 , for violations of law committed within the jurisdiction of s. 570.15 to the same extent and under the same limitations and duties as do peace officers under the provisions of chapter 901; and all such special officers shall have the right and authority to carry arms while on duty, provided such officers meet...

...aw enforcement officers (as defined in s 943.10 [1], F.S.), it cannot be said that such officers are in fact and law full-fledged peace officers, although vested with the power to make arrests to the same extent as peace officers for violations of s 570.15 (2), F.S., or law enforcement officers as defined in s 943.10 (1), F.S. Moreover, the proposed class consolidation for purposes of pay and personnel management would appear to be permitted by and in conformity with the last sentence of s 570.151, F.S., which requires compensation of such agricultural inspection officers to be fixed and paid in accordance with the state classification and pay plan for career service employees....

...fined in Ch. 943 , F.S., or in any way convert them into law enforcement officers. Conversely, the proposed reclassification would not seem to hinder these agricultural inspection officers in the performance of any of their statutory duties under ss 570.15 and 570.151, F.S....

...fficer into the class of law enforcement officer and the class of agricultural inspection officer supervisor into the class of law enforcement sergeant for the purposes of Ch. 110 , F.S., and for classification and pay plan purposes as mandated by s 570.151(2), F.S., the department does not appear to possess the authority to impose upon agricultural inspection officers or agricultural inspection supervisors any duties other than those outlined in ss 570.15 and 570.151, F.S., and any actions, including any illegal searches made under the pretext of a regulatory inspection, by such officers outside the scope of s 570.15 , F.S., regardless of the job title or classification of the position such inspectors hold, would be ultra vires and subject to challenge in an appropriate judicial proceeding....

...960 (1977), in which the court outlined the authority of the department regarding agricultural inspections: "Appellee has full authority under the police power of the State of Florida to conduct agricultural inspections of the vehicles mentioned in the above statutes (ss 570.44 [3] and 570.15 , F.S....

...of law enforcement officer and law enforcement sergeant this action will not negate the ability or the authority of the Department of Agriculture or its agricultural inspection officers to carry out its or their duties and responsibilities under ss 570.15 and 570.151, F.S....

...cks belonged to him and that there was no fruit in them. Pennington said nothing. Sower unsuccessfully attempted to open the lockers in his truck and in Pennington’s truck with a key in his possession. The appellants were arrested for violation of Section 570.15, and they were read their Miranda rights....