VIRGINIA GALLANT AND PHILLIP GALLANT, APPELLANTS,

v.

WILLIAM C. RAPE ET AL., APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Riocabo, 372 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
  …t, concealed inside the purse. Neither the Christian nor the Day case, which have to do with weapons protruding from under the seat of an automobile, compels a contrary holding. See State v. Sellers, supra; and see the discussion in Powell v. State, 369 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). See also People v. Jones, 12 Mich. App. 293, 162 N.W. 2d 847 (1968); and Shipley v. State, 243 Md. 262, 220 A. 2d 585 (1966). Accordingly, the order suppressing the evidence of the firearm and a quantity of cocaine seized pursu…
• McGRAW v. State, 387 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
  …gree with the holding in Ensor, supra, the facts of the instant case are distinguishable. Here, there was no unidentified object, and the officers recognized the object as a firearm immediately. The instant case seems controlled by Powell v. State, 369 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) and State v. Day, 301 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Since the officers saw what they knew to be a firearm, the weapon was not concealed within the meaning of the statute. As to the motion to suppress, the state has taken incon…
• State v. Elton E. Ensor, 375 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
  …aled, and thus an inconsistency would exist in the instant case if both the motion to suppress and motion to dismiss were denied, we feel the terms “plain view” and “concealed” are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In the case of Powell v. State, 369 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), the Court held that a firearm does not need to be entirely concealed in order to be a prohibited concealed firearm. In State v. Sellers, 281 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) the Court there indicated that in cases where the facts s…