B.C., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pennsylvania V. Mimms cases and more on FLexlaw
[*956] PER CURIAM.
The finding of delinquency and disposition under review is affirmed upon a holding that the trial court properly denied the juvenile’s pretrial motion to suppress the cannabis seized by police from the juvenile’s person because: (a) the arresting officer properly stopped the automobile in which the juvenile was riding based on a reasonable belief that the juvenile and his companions were absent from school without authorization, § 39.401(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1983), (b) the juvenile and his companions were thereupon properly ordered out of the automobile by the arresting officer, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977); and (c) the cannabis was thereafter properly seized by the arresting officer as it was observed in plain sight in a clear plastic bag in the front pocket area of the juvenile’s jacket. Neary v. State, 384 So. 2d 881, 884 (Fla. 1980); Gibson v. State, 368 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Barcenas, 559 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…drug investigation was pursued. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (directing the occupants of vehicle out of car while officer pursues his lawful investigation is a de minimis intrusion at best); B.C. v. State, 449 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (following lawful stop, arresting officer properly ordered juvenile out of his vehicle). Finally, the cocaine was properly seized by the officer as it was uncontro-verted that the drugs were observed in plain sight from outside…
-
State v. A.J., 720 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…at the child [was] absent from school without authorization” based on the child’s own confession that he was skipping school. See K.A.C. v. State, 707 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); C.G. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); B.C. v. State, 449 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Even if the officer erroneously believed that he had probable cause to arrest A.J. for the crime of loitering and prowling, the stop was nevertheless valid. See State v. Scott, 641 So. 2d 517, 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (Where probab…
Authorities Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1977)
- Neary v. State, 384 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1980)
- Gibson v. State, 368 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)