CHARLES EDWARD BALDWIN, 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.
Charles Baldwin appealed the denial of his motion to suppress a wallet seized during a pat-down frisk incident to an investigatory stop for strong-arm robbery. The court held that a police officer exceeded the permissible scope of a frisk when he seized a wallet from the defendant's pocket, knowing it was not a weapon. The court reversed and remanded, finding the seizure violated Florida's statutory frisk procedures.
The seizure of the wallet was illegal and violated Florida's statutory frisk procedures. An officer conducting a frisk may not seize an item during the pat-down unless the officer reasonably believes the object might be a weapon. Since Officer Heck knew the bulge was a wallet and not a weapon, he could not legally reach into the defendant's pocket and remove it.
[1] A frisk search conducted pursuant to a lawful stop is permissible only to discover weapons.
[2] A frisk search may not extend beyond a pat down of outer clothing unless the pat down or other circumstances lead the officer to believe the subject is carrying a weapon.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Under that statute, if the officer has properly stopped someone and believes that the person may be armed with a dangerous weapon, he may search that person to the extent necessary to disclose the presence of such weapon. However, the search may not be extended beyond a pat-down of the suspect's outer clothing unless that pat-down or other circumstances leads the officer to conclude that the suspect has a weapon on his person.”
Establishes the legal standard for permissible frisk searches under Florida statute
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Ronald Heck stopped defendant and another man while investigating a strong-arm robbery and requested identification. Defendant provided his na…
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 Terry Frisk cases and more on FLexlaw
CURTIS, CLINTON A., Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress evidence. The issue before us is whether the police officer exceeded the permissible scope of a pat-down or frisk incident to an investigatory stop where a wallet was seized from defendant’s person. We agree with defendant that seizure of the wallet was illegal and reverse.
Officer Ronald Heck testified that pursuant to investigating a strong-arm robbery, he stopped defendant and another man and asked them for identification. The other man produced identification, but defendant said he had none, although he gave his name. The officer then patted down both men for weapons. Officer Heck felt a bulge, consistent with a wallet, in defendant’s back pocket. The bulge turned out to be the victim’s wallet, and the wallet was seized. The officer admitted that when he felt the bulge, he knew it was a wallet. He had no apprehensions that the bulge in defendant’s pocket was a weapon.
Section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1981), sets out the procedure by which police officers may stop and frisk people suspected of wrongdoing. Under that statute, if the officer has properly stopped someone and believes that the person may be armed with a dangerous weapon, he may search that person to the extent necessary to disclose the presence of such weapon. However, the search may not be extended beyond a pat-down of the suspect’s outer clothing unless that pat-down or other circumstances leads the officer to conclude that the suspect has a weapon on his person. Meeks v. State, 356 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). In the instant case, although Officer Heck initiated the pat-down to disclose any weapons on defendant’s person, he candidly admitted that he knew the bulge in defendant’s pocket was not a weapon. Clearly then, since Officer Heck knew the bulge was not a weapon, he could not legally reach into defendant’s pocket and pull out the wallet. Raleigh v. State, 404 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Meeks v. State.
Section 901.151(5) states that if “such a search discloses such a weapon or any evidence of a criminal offense, it may be seized.” However, the seizure of contraband or other evidence of a crime during a legal stop and frisk is permissible only so long as the officer reasonably believes that the object which he is acquiring might be a weapon. Dunn v. State, 382 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Therefore, since the officer never considered the bulge to be a weapon, the seizure of the wallet did not conform with acceptable procedures.
We vacate the judgment, reverse the order denying the motion to suppress the wallet, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Walker v. State, 514 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…weapon. Dunn v. State, 382 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Here, the officer candidly admitted that he knew the object he felt in Walker’s pocket was not a weapon. Clearly therefore, he could not legally reach into Walker’s pocket. Baldwin v. State, 418 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Raleigh v. State, 404 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Although the officer also testified that the stem of the pipe was in plain view, we do not find that the pipe alone could constitute probable cause to arrest for possession o…
-
Jordan v. State, 544 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…ermissible scope of a weapons search when he retrieved the four rocks of cocaine from the small inner front pocket of the appellant’s jeans. The officer could not reasonably have believed the object in that pocket was a weapon. See Baldwin v. State, 418 So. 2d 1219 (Fla.2d DCA 1982). Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and sentence. Reversed. SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.…
-
Thompson v. State, 551 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…cope of an investigatory pat-down by asking appellant to remove his shoes, and the subsequent seizure of cocaine was invalid. Jordan v. State, 544 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Walker v. State, 514 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Baldwin v. State, 418 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); and Dunn v. State, 382 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Beck-man’s testimony that appellant could “pos [*1250] sibly” have had a pocket knife in his shoe did not save the search. White v. State, 458 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dunn v. State, 382 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Meeks v. State, 356 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Raleigh v. State, 404 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)