C.H., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
C.H., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent based on evidence seized during a pat-down search of his person. The appellate court reversed, finding the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights because once the officer determined the bulge was a cigarette case rather than a weapon, any reasonable suspicion to search further dissipated.
The trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. Although the initial bulge gave rise to reasonable suspicion that the suspect was armed, that reasonable suspicion dissipated once the officer determined the object was a cigarette case rather than a weapon. The search of the cigarette case could not be justified on the basis that a razor blade was found inside it.
[1] A pat-down search for weapons is permissible when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed and dangerous.
[2] Reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed dissipates once an officer identifies an object in the suspect's pocket as a cigarette case, absent further evidence of a wea…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the court's central holding that the initial justification for the pat-down search evaporated once the officer knew the object was not a weapon.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn December 1987, an Opa-Locka police officer responded to a retail store to investigate C.H.'s presentation of a questionable one-hundred dollar bill…
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 Concealed Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
C.H. appeals from an adjudication of delinquency. For the following reason, we reverse.
In December, 1987, an Opa-locka police officer was called to a retail store to investigate C.H.’s presentation of a “questionable” one-hundred dollar bill. The officer observed a large bulge in C.H.’s back pants pocket, conducted a pat-down, and removed a metal cigarette case. The case was approximately ½ inch deep, 2½ inches wide, and 3½ inches long. The officer opened the case to check for possible weapons and found a razor blade and rock cocaine. C.H. was arrested and charged with narcotics violations. After hearing the officer’s testimony regarding his search of C.H., the trial court denied C.H.’s motion to suppress the cigarette case as the result of an illegal search. Defense counsel initially stated that C.H. would enter a nolo contendere plea but then indicated that the ruling on the motion to suppress was dispositive and that the defense would rest. Upon the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, the trial court found and adjudicated C.H. delinquent.
The trial court erred in denying C.H.’s motion to suppress the physical evidence seized. Although the bulge in C.H.’s pocket initially may have given rise to a reasonable suspicion that the suspect was armed, see State v. Ramos, 878 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (presence of bulge which is consistent with outline of weapon, when coupled with other incriminating circumstances, may give rise to reasonable belief that suspect is armed), that reasonable suspicion disappeared once the officer determined that the object in the pocket was a cigarette case and not a weapon. There was no evidence presented that the officer had a reasonable suspicion that the cigarette case contained any kind of weapon; the search cannot be justified on the basis that a razor blade was found inside the case. See Schnick v. State, 362 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (search not justified merely because pocket knife actually found on suspect). Moreover, “[a] razor blade, like a nail file, keys or hat pin, is a common household item which when carried on or about a person ... is not a concealed weapon unless it is used in a threatening manner so that it might be considered deadly.” Robinson v. State, 547 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
Because our reversal of the trial court’s denial of C.H.’s motion to suppress is dis-positive, we need not reach the remaining issue on appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Tremblay, 642 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…ng manner so that they might be considered deadly. See also P.C. v. State, 589 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (concealed letter opener was not a concealed weapon unless there was evidence that the defendant used it as a deadly weapon); C.H. v. State, 548 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (razor blade is common household item which is not a concealed weapon unless used in a threatening manner). Thus, absent competent, substantial [*67] evidence that appellee used the ice pick in a threatening manner toward the poli…
-
R.R. v. State, 826 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…a razor blade, like a nail file, keys or a hat pin, is a common household item which when carried on or about a person is not a concealed weapon unless it is used in a threatening manner so that it might be considered deadly. See also C.H. v. State, 548 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). We agree, however, with the distinction made in Sims v. State, 688 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), between an ordinary razor blade and a straight-edged razor. An object can become a deadly weapon if its sole modern use is to cause…
-
Sims v. State, 688 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
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
- Robinson v. State, 547 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Schnick v. State, 362 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)