MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,

v.

UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Patrick, 437 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
  …centered around the fact that after the frisk, the defendant was not under custodial arrest. The freedom of an occupant to return to the vehicle or the absence of such freedom was considered by this court to be most significant in Clements v. State, 396 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA), petition for review denied, 408 So. 2d 1092 (Fla.1981). Therein it was held that the evidence should have been suppressed after a finding that the search was conducted prior to the point at which the freedom to reoccupy the vehicle w…
• Clements v. State, 396 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
  …nces that appellants appeal. Appellants first challenge the denial of their motions to suppress evidence resulting from two separate stops of a vehicle in which they were riding. The facts surrounding these stops are set forth in Clements v. State, 396 So. 2d 214 (Fla.4th DCÁ 1981). We adhere to the holding of that case; the stops and ultimate arrests of appellants were legal, thus suppression of the evidence obtained as a result thereof, with the exception of the knives and gun, was properly denied. In the…
• Dodds v. State, 434 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
  …. This Court finds that the above circumstances as they appear from the evidence in this case show that the officers had a well founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Therefore, the stop of Dodds’ vehicle was proper. Clements v. State, 396 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Gamble, 370 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). As a result of the officers’ further investigation and observation of radar detectors, plus the smell of marijuana, they had probable cause to arrest Dodds without a warrant b…