THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CLIFFORD BROWN AND ANTHONY CRUMITY, APPELLEES
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.
Florida's reversal of a suppression order holding that police lawfully stopped defendants based on articulable suspicion of auto theft and expired tags, and validly searched under the car seat based on furtive hand movements indicating possible weapons.
Police lawfully stopped defendants on articulable suspicion of auto theft and expired license plate, and validly searched under the car seat based on furtive hand movements indicating they were armed and dangerous.
[1] Furtive hand movements under a car seat during a lawful traffic stop constitute articulable suspicion that occupants are armed and dangerous, justifying a search of that…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice stopped defendants Clifford Brown and Anthony Crumity based on suspicion of auto theft and an expired license plate. During the stop, both defe…
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 Search Incident To Lawful Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order under review suppressing the evidence in this cause is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings upon a holding that: (a) the defendants [Clifford Brown and Anthony Crumity] were lawfully stopped by the police and subjected to a valid temporary detention based on articulable suspicion of auto theft and driving with an expired license plate, State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); (b) the furtive hand movements of both defendants under the car seat, during the subsequent police investigation after the stop, constituted articulable suspicion that the defendants were armed and dangerous, which, in turn, justified the police in searching under the car seat and seizing two guns thereunder — after the police had validly ordered both defendants out of the car, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977); Brown v. State, 358 So. 2d 596 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Stevens v. State, 354 So. 2d 110 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); and (c) the lack of standing contention raised by the state is not here reached as, in any event, the instant search was a reasonable one even assuming the defendants had standing to challenge the search, see Gray v. State, 177 So. 2d 868 (Fla.3d DCA 1965), cert. denied, 188 So. 2d 815 (Fla.1966).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Dilyerd, 467 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1985)…ice. This cause is before us on a petition to review a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal reported as Dilyerd v. State, 444 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We have jurisdiction because of direct and express conflict with State v. Brown, 395 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 407 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1981). Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. The incident with which we are concerned took place in an orange grove on the night of 5 September 1981. The owners of the grove were redeveloping the area int…
-
Dewberry v. State, 905 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…59, 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“Furtive movements may give rise to a reasonable suspicion that someone is armed and dangerous.”); C.G. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); State v. Kinnane, 689 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); State v. Brown, 395 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 407 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1981); see also State v. Dilyerd, 467 So. 2d 301, 302 (Fla.1985) (holding the search of a car was justified where the passenger made furtive movement reasonably appearing to be an attempt to conceal…
-
C.G. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…mony that he feared for his own safety. That inference is permissible based upon the historical facts. Furtive movements in appearing to place something under a car seat constituted articulable suspicion that defendants were armed in State v. Brown, 395 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA). We think that the furtive movements combined with the appearance of placing something in the shoe was likewise sufficient here. We find Thompson, cited by appellant, to be distinguishable from this case. In Thompson, the officer cond…
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
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1977)
- State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Brown v. State, 358 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Gray v. State, 177 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Meyer Kotler and Helen G. Rechtschaffer v. Morris Kroop, Inc., 354 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Stevens v. State, 354 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Frick v. Levering, 188 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1966)
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Blair, 188 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1966)