# Ackles v. State

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · December 12, 1972 · 270 So. 2d 39

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7452417

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert Churchill ACKLES v. STATE of Florida
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** December 12, 1972
- **Citations:** 270 So. 2d 39; 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 5714
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Mager
- **Judges:** Mager, Owen, Walden
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7452417

## Opinion text

MAGER, Judge
(dissenting) :
Notwithstanding the persuasive logic set forth by the majority, it appears to me that the opinion conflicts with the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. Gustafson, Fla.1972, 258 So.2d 1 . The majority predicates its reversal of the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress on the proposition that the warrant-less search of defendant’s vehicle was not “incident to” his arrest on the charge of “sleeping in the vehicle”. By so holding the majority has in effect concluded that “there must be a nexus between the offense and the object sought for a search conducted in connection with an arrest to be truly incident to it.” Gustafson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 615 . In quashing our opinion in Gustafson v. State, supra, the Supreme Court in State v. Gustafson, supra, clearly and unmistakably rejected this “nexus” principle concluding that this narrow test was a “radical departure from established, reasonable standards.”
Accordingly, based upon the decision in State v. Gustafson, I would affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7452417. Public record. Not legal advice.