QUILLIAN R. ADDISON, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Addison appeals his conviction for cocaine possession following a nolo contendere plea, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a vehicle stop. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the initial stop was supported by probable cause based on personal observation and a confidential informant's information.
The court held that the initial stop was lawful because there was probable cause or at least well-founded suspicion to believe Addison possessed contraband. The frisk was warranted given information about the knife, and the plain view observation of contraband justified the subsequent search based on consent and probable cause. Police were justified in not seeking a warrant before the vehicle was driven away because probable cause was still developing, and exigent circumstances existed by the time ample probable cause was established.
[1] A police stop is justified if there is probable cause, or at least a well-founded suspicion, to believe a person possesses contraband.
[2] A frisk of a suspect is warranted when there is information that the suspect carries a weapon.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We find that there was probable cause, or at least a well-founded suspicion, to believe Addison possessed contraband in his automobile at the time of the stop.”
Establishes the legal standard for the initial stop and the court's finding that it was satisfied
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice stopped Addison's automobile based on probable cause derived from personal observation and information provided by a confidential informant tha…
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 Fellow Officer Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Addison appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine and sentence of two years following a plea of nolo contendere reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress based on the ground that the initial stop was illegal.
We affirm.
We find that there was probable cause, or at least a well-founded suspicion, to believe Addison possessed contraband in his automobile at the time of the stop.
The facts giving rise to the probable cause were provided by personal observation and by a confidential informant. After the stop took place, the frisk was warranted, especially in light of information that Addison carried a knife. While conducting the frisk, the arresting officer saw, in plain view, contraband in the car.
Therefore, the subsequent search based on consent and probable cause was proper. See generally, St. John v. State, 356 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The police were justified in not seeking a warrant before Addison drove off in his car because probable cause for a search was arguably still developing. Compare Hornblower v. State, 351 So. 2d 716, 718 (Fla.1977) (“ample probable cause”) and Raffield v. State, 351 So. 2d 945, 947 (Fla.1977) (“unquestionable probable cause”). By the time there was ample probable cause, there existed exigent circumstances. Davis v. State, 350 So. 2d 834, 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 355 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1978).
Finally, although Officer Seda, the arresting officer, did not have firsthand knowledge of the facts supporting the confidential informant’s reliability, Officer Kish, the fellow officer who told Seda the facts relayed by the informant, did have such firsthand knowledge and testified to the facts supporting reliability and credibility at the suppression hearing. See U. S. v. Ashley, 569 F. 2d 975, 983 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 853, 99 S.Ct. 163, 58 L.Ed.2d 159 (1978); Crawford v. State, 334 So. 2d 141, 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Salas v. State, 246 So. 2d 621, 622 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
Compare Sagonias v. State, 89 So. 2d 252 (Fla.1966) relied upon in Hyatt v. State, 329 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 1085 (Fla.1976) (officer having firsthand knowledge didn’t testify); St. John v. State, 363 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
AFFIRMED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barbes v. State, 414 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341 (Fla.1980); Addison v. State, 378 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); § 901.151, Fla.Stat. (1979).…
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- Hornblower v. State, 351 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 1977)
- United States v. Ashley, 569 F.2d 975 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Leveral Raffield v. State, 351 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 1977)
- Salas v. State, 246 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Sagonias v. State, 89 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 1956)
- ST. John v. State, 363 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Crawford v. State, 334 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Dumas v. Bordenkircher, 439 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1978)
- Cheatwood v. United States, 439 U.S. 853 (U.S. 1978)
- ST. John v. State, 356 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)