THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
M.N.M., A JUVENILE, 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.
The State appealed a suppression order after a trial court excluded drugs and weapons seized from a juvenile during an altercation at a bowling alley parking lot. The appellate court reversed, holding that the officers lawfully ordered the juvenile from his vehicle, properly seized items in plain view, and conducted valid searches incident to arrest.
The court reversed the suppression order, holding that the officers lawfully ordered the juvenile from the vehicle, properly seized the brass knuckles and marijuana cigarettes under the plain view doctrine, and validly searched the juvenile and vehicle incident to a lawful arrest.
[1] A de minimis intrusion by ordering a person to exit a vehicle is justified by the potential risk to an officer in approaching a volatile situation.
[2] Evidence observed in plain view by officers who are lawfully present is subject to lawful seizure.
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“The de minimis intrusion involved in ordering the juvenile to get out of his vehicle was justified by the potential risk to the officer in approaching a volatile situation.”
Establishes the court's rationale for permitting the order to exit the vehicle without a formal stop or 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 3:00 a.m., police responded to an altercation in a bowling alley parking lot where the juvenile and a companion were exchanging shouts and threats …
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 Lawful Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
The state appeals from an order suppressing tangible evidence of drugs and weapons seized from the juvenile. We reverse.
At approximately 3:00 a.m., a police officer observed an altercation in the parking lot of a bowling alley. The juvenile and a companion were standing by their car, exchanging shouts and threats with a group of eight to twenty other people. Two other officers arrived and attempted to disperse the crowd. One policeman asked the juvenile, who had partially re-entered the vehicle, to step outside the car. As he complied with this request, a pair of brass knuckles fell from the vehicle. At about the same time, someone in the crowd shouted that there was a gun. Bending down to pick up the brass knuckles, the officer looked into the car for a gun and saw marijuana cigarettes in an open ashtray. The officer then arrested the juvenile and patted him down for weapons. A large knife was found concealed in his pocket. Subsequently, the police searched the vehicle and uncovered a pistol, a bag of marijuana, and a “roach clip.” Finding that these drugs and weapons were illegally seized, the trial court granted the juvenile’s motion to suppress. We reverse.
We need not consider whether there was a lawful stop of the vehicle because the automobile and its occupants were already stationary for reasons unrelated to the police activity. State v. Williams, 371 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 381 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1980). The de minimis intrusion involved in ordering the juvenile to get out of his vehicle was justified by the potential risk to the officer in approaching a volatile situation. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977).
Having found that the officers were where they had a right to be, it follows that the officers properly seized the brass knuckles and marijuana cigarettes, both of which were of an apparently incriminating nature and observed in open view. Cobb v. State, 378 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Hughes, 375 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); State v. Flores, 305 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 315 So. 2d 189 (Fla.1975). At that point, the officers effectuated a valid arrest, subsequent to which they properly searched the juvenile and the vehicle. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); Login v. State, 394 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Because we find that the officers’ activities were lawful and proper, we reverse the order suppressing the evidence of the drugs and weapons and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Orestes Rodriguez v. State, 462 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…n and sentence entered thereon and remand for a new trial. Rodriguez also argues that the trial court erred by failing to suppress certain physical evidence. We conclude that the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress. State v. M.N.M., 423 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Dinkins v. State, 244 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Reversed and remanded for a new trial. . See Fla.Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.06. . The record does not reflect whether (1) the jury advised the judge that it was deadlocked…
-
Wright v. State, 471 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ertained that the vehicle was occupied, the de minimis intrusion involved in asking the defendant to exit the vehicle and questioning him as to why the license tag was obscured was justified by the totality of the circumstances. See State v. M.N.M., 423 So. 2d 987, 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). A slightly more difficult question is whether the officer had probable cause to detain Wright and question him about his presence at the location. Again, we find that the totality of the circumstances justified the detentio…1 / 2
-
J.M. v. State, 448 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. D.T.W., 425 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); State v. M.N.M., 423 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1977)
- Login v. State, 394 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. Flores, 305 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- State v. Williams, 371 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Cobb v. State, 378 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State v. Hughes, 375 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Flores v. State, 315 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1975)
- Gray v. State, 315 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1975)