ANTHONY GIBSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Anthony Gibson appealed convictions for possession of controlled substances and grand larceny, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the initial police stop was justified by reasonable suspicion and that the subsequent search incident to arrest was lawful.
The court held that the initial stop was properly based on the officer's reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the heroin found in the visible pouch was properly seized without a formal search, and the subsequent arrest and search incident to that arrest were lawful because they were founded upon probable cause to believe Gibson had committed felony possession.
[1] A police officer's initial stop of a defendant is lawful if based upon a reasonable or founded suspicion of criminal activity.
[2] Contraband left in plain view by a defendant during a lawful detention may be seized without a search.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the initial stop of the defendant was properly based upon the police officer's "reasonable" or "founded suspicion" of criminal activity”
Establishes the legal standard for the initial police stop and why it was justified
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGibson and three companions were approached by a police officer in front of an alley in a deserted area of Opa Locka at 5:00 a.m. When the officer app…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Possession Of A Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
[*668] SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The defendant Gibson appeals from judgments of guilt and concurrent sentences of six months in prison for possession of controlled substances and for grand larceny. The grand larceny judgment was entered after the defendant’s probation for that crime was revoked because of his having committed the substantive offense of possession. The sole issue concerns the lower court’s action in denying suppression of the contraband in question. We affirm.
Since we hold that, under the circumstances involved,1 the initial stop of the defendant was properly based upon the police officer’s “reasonable” or “founded suspicion” of criminal activity, State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Pla. 4th DCA 1978), the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress the heroin which was found, without a “search,” where Gibson had left it in a pouch which the officer could plainly see as he was detaining the defendant. State v. Stevens, supra, at 1248. Gibson’s subsequent arrest was in turn founded upon probable cause to believe that he had committed the felony of the possession of that heroin; it was therefore lawfully effected notwithstanding the fact that the officer formally stated that he was arresting Gibson for loitering and prowling, rather than possession. Maddox v. State, 236 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Hoskins v. State, 208 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 214 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1968). Hence, the court also rightly refused to suppress additional heroin and a quantity of cocaine which was discovered upon a search of the defendant’s person after and incident to the thus-lawful arrest. Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260, 94 S.Ct. 488, 38 L.Ed.2d 456 (1973).
Affirmed.2
. The defendant started to run when the officer approached him and three companions in front of an alley in a deserted area of Opa Locka at 5:00 in the morning.
. Since we find the search and seizures to have been justified we need not discuss whether evidence which has been unconstitutionally secured may nevertheless be employed in a probation revocation proceeding. See Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1976); Kinzer v. State, 366 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Nor need we decide whether, if it may be so employed, the conviction of the substantive offense would be properly reviewable at all since the sentence imposed was only concurrent to that involved in the case in which Gibson’s probation was revoked. Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1942); Mathis v. State, 348 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So. 2d 186 (Fla.1978).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. PYE, 551 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…th DCA 1979) (anonymous tip detailing defendant and an impending drug sale, coupled with flight), cert. denied, 381 So. 2d 770 (Fla.1980), receded from on other grounds, In the Interest of G.A.R., 387 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Gibson v. State, 368 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (defendant’s presence in deserted alley early in morning, plus flight). We conclude that the two* officers below manifested reasonable suspicion to carry out an investigatory stop, due to their observations of all of the circumst…
-
Cobb v. State, 511 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…n of defendant peering from an alley into first floor window of an apartment plus flight); Isham v. State, 369 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (informant’s detailed tip concerning an impending drug sale by the defendant plus flight); Gibson v. State, 368 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (defendant’s presence in front of alley in deserted area at early morning hour plus flight). Nevertheless, flight, standing alone, will not justify either such a belief or stop.1 See Wilson v. State, 433 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1…
-
State v. Hoover, 520 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…3d DCA 1980) (defendant seen peering from alley into first floor window of apartment plus flight); Isham v. State, 369 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (informant’s detailed tip regarding defendant’s impending drug sale plus flight); Gibson v. State, 368 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (defendant’s presence in alley in deserted area early in morning plus flight). However, flight standing alone will not justify a stop, and the fact that the defendant was in a high crime area does not constitute an additional susp…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1943)
- Gustafson v. Florida, 414 U.S. 260 (U.S. 1973)
- State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1976)
- Mathis v. State, 348 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Hoskins v. State, 208 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Hecht Rubber Corp. v. Meckler, 214 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1968)
- State Rd. Dep't OF Fla. v. Cowart, 236 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Kinzer v. State, 366 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)