REGINA DIANE JACKSON, 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.
Regina Jackson was charged with carrying a concealed firearm after police found a gun during a search. Jackson moved to suppress the evidence as an unlawful search, but the trial court denied the motion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the officer had reasonable grounds to frisk Jackson based on the victim's statement that a gun was involved in the robbery and Jackson's suspicious tucking motion.
The search was lawful and justified. An officer may frisk an individual accompanying a suspect if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the individual is carrying a dangerous weapon, based on facts known at the time of the search. Here, the victim's statement that a gun was involved in the robbery, combined with Jackson's suspicious tucking motion, provided reasonable grounds for the frisk.
[1] A police officer may frisk an individual accompanying a suspect if reasonable grounds exist to believe the individual is carrying a dangerous weapon.
[2] A frisk is justified when, during a lawful encounter, an officer develops a reasonable belief that a citizen is carrying a dangerous weapon, thereby posing a threat to of…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“An individual may not be frisked simply because he is standing next to another individual who is being arrested.”
Establishes the baseline rule that mere proximity to a suspect does not justify a frisk
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt approximately 1:00 A.M., Orlando police officer Robert Newsome observed a black male matching a robbery suspect description and saw Jackson accompa…
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 Frisk For Weapons cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Appellant Jackson was charged with carrying a concealed firearm. She moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that it had been obtained as the result of an unlawful search and seizure, and when the trial court denied that motion, she entered a plea of nolo contendere and reserved her right to appeal the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress. Judgment and sentence have been imposed and Jackson has appealed.
At about 1:00 A.M., Orlando Police Officer Robert Newsome saw a black male who matched a robbery suspect BOLO that had been broadcast over the police radio. Appellant Jackson was with the suspect. As Officer Newsome approached, Jackson made a tucking motion behind her. Officer Newsome patted down the suspect, but did not find any weapons on him. While Officer Newsome was filling out a field report, Orlando Police Officer Uvalle arrived with the robbery victim. During a conversation with the officers, the victim identified the suspect and told the officers that there had been a gun. At that point, it clicked in Officer Newsome’s mind that the gun may have been what Jackson had tucked behind her. Officer Newsome searched underneath the back of Jackson’s sweater and found a gun in the back of her pants. An individual may not be frisked simply because he is standing next to another individual who is being arrested. Dunn v. State, 382 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Perry v. State, 296 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
However, if during a lawful and temporary encounter between a police officer and a citizen, a reasonable ground is formulated to believe that the citizen is carrying a dangerous weapon, a frisk of that citizen’s person is justified to ensure the safety of the police officer. McNamara v. State, 357 So. 2d 410 (Fla.1978); State v. Rawlings, 391 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Ingram v. State, 264 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 271 So. 2d 141 (Fla.1972). This rule applies to an individual who is accompanying a suspect that the police have stopped. Williams v. State, 294 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 299 So. 2d 602 (Fla.1974).
In the case at hand, in light of the facts known to Officer Newsome at the time he decided to search Jackson, the officer had a reasonable ground to believe that the gun was on her person. Therefore, the officer was justified in frisking Jackson in order to find that weapon.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lightbourne v. State, 438 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1983)…nt’s furtive movements and nervous appearance when observed by Officer McGowan formulated a reasonable ground to believe that the defendant was armed and potentially dangerous. United States v. Tharpe, 526 F. 2d 326 (5th Cir.1976); Jackson v. State, 403 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The officer in this case acted with prudence and [*389] was entitled to execute the limited search for weapons which might be used to assault him. Terry v. Ohio. Based on the foregoing, we hold the officer’s initial contact wit…
-
State v. Wilfredo Navarro and Roerme Navarro, 464 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…up were stopped, detained and frisked. The Court finds such “overkill” to be a particularly unjustified limitation on an Individual’s freedom and to characterize the unconstitutional overzealousness demonstrated by the Police. See Jackson vs. State, 403 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Defendants’ Motion to Suppress is granted. In reviewing the findings of a trial judge on a motion to suppress, the findings must be accepted by the appellate cour…
-
Lothar Sommer v. State, 465 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…tive movements and nervous appearance [*1342] when observed by Officer McGowan formulated a reasonable ground to believe that the defendant was armed and potentially dangerous. United States v. Tharpe, 526 F. 2d 326 (5th Cir.1976); Jackson v. State, 403 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The officer in this case acted with prudence and was entitled to execute the limited search for weapons which might be used to assault him. Terry v. Ohio. Based on the foregoing, we hold the officer’s initial contact with the d…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McNAMARA v. State, 357 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1978)
- Dunn v. State, 382 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Williams v. State, 294 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- State v. Rawlings, 391 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Ingram v. State, 264 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Williams v. State, 299 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1974)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. & Howard Indus., Inc. v. Ladislad Zamora & State of Fla., 299 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1974)
- Perry v. State, 296 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- City OF Lighthouse Point v. State of Fla. ex rel. FPA Corp., 271 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1972)
- Thompson v. City OF Miami Beach, 271 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1972)