JAMES HARRISON, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress, holding that an officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle based on a pried-open trunk keyhole observed in an area known for vehicle theft.
An officer had well-founded suspicion to justify a vehicle stop based on observation of a pried-open trunk keyhole in an area known for high vehicle theft and the officer's experience.
[1] An officer may conduct a vehicle stop based on well-founded suspicion derived from observation of a pried-open trunk keyhole in an area known for vehicle theft, combined…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn officer on routine patrol in an area known for crack trafficking and frequent stolen vehicle recovery observed a vehicle with a pried-open trunk ke…
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 Founded Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals from the denial of a motion to suppress following which he entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of third-degree grand theft of a motor vehicle.
The dispositive point is whether the arresting officer had founded suspicion to justify a stop of the vehicle which the defendant was driving. The officer testified that he first observed the defendant while on routine patrol in an area known to police for its crack trafficking and high percentage of stolen motor vehicles resulting in recovery by police of between two and three such vehicles per day. As the officer approached from behind the vehicle operated by the defendant, the officer observed “the trunk key hole was pried open.” Based upon his experience, and these articulated facts, the policeman required the defendant to pull to curb-side where further investigation led to the revelation that the defendant had stolen the vehicle. Because of the police officer’s experience and the totality of the circumstances, we agree with the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress finding there was well-founded suspicion of criminal activity to justify stopping the defendant’s vehicle. State v. Lawson, 446 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 453 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1984); Mock v. State, 385 So. 2d 665, 667 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1377 (Fla.1980); State v. Lopez, 369 So. 2d 623, 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1198 (Fla.1980); State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244, 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); § 901.151(2), Fla.Stat. (1987).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- State v. Lawson, 446 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Lawton S. Mock v. State, 385 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- State v. Lopez, 369 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)