WILLIE C. TAYLOR, 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.
Willie Taylor was charged with carrying a concealed weapon after police observed what appeared to be a gun butt in his vehicle during a traffic stop. The Florida appellate court reversed the conviction, finding the facts indistinguishable from Cope v. State and holding that the trial court erred in denying Taylor's motion to dismiss.
The trial court erred in denying Taylor's motion to dismiss. The appellate court found the facts logically indistinguishable from Cope v. State and reversed the conviction.
[1] A weapon is not concealed when its butt is visible to an officer shining a flashlight into a vehicle.
[2] A weapon is not concealed when it is not fully in view.
Previewing 2 of 3 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, it was concealed to, to a point where it wasn't fully, fully in view.”
Officer's testimony about the degree of concealment of the object, establishing partial visibility
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a traffic stop, a police officer used a flashlight to look inside Taylor's vehicle while Taylor was retrieving his registration. The officer ob…
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 Carrying A Concealed Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The issue on this appeal is whether the appellant was guilty of carrying a concealed weapon. The critical testimony submitted at a hearing on a defense motion to dismiss was elicited from the arresting officer:
BY MS. ROSEN [Defense counsel]: Okay, so he goes into the vehicle at that point when he’s retrieving his registration that you use your flashlight to look inside the vehicle. A. Ah, yeah, ah, that[’]s standard procedure, ah, to insure my own safety for one, I always do that whenever I’m on a traffic stop. Q. Okay, ah what happened when you looked inside? A. Okay, as he, as he was leaning over he was ah he’s apparently going for the glove box, that’s where most people keep their registrations as he was leaning in over the glove box I had the flashlight looking over his back I observed what I noticed to be the butt of a ah pistol in between the driver’s seat and the, and the um and the center part of the vehicle. Q. Was it concealed? A. The, it was concealed to, to a point where it wasn’t fully, fully in view. Q. Okay, but you could tell it was the butt of, - something? A. Yes Ma’am. Q. Okay you couldn’t tell whether it was a pistol or a B.B. gun or-A. No ma[’]am. Q. -or an air gun or what— A. No ma[’]am— Q. Right? Okay, what did you do then? A. I ordered him out of the car ... The facts herein are logically indistinguishable from those in Cope v. State, 523 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1355 (Fla.1988). Accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in denying Taylor’s motion to dismiss; hence, we reverse and remand with instructions to discharge the defendant.
REVERSED.
DANIEL, C.J., concurs.
SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.
SHARP, Judge,
dissenting.
This case is factually distinguishable from Cope v. State, 523 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), because more of the pistol in this case was concealed, creating, arguably, more of a fact issue (not resolvable as a matter of law) as to whether or not the weapon was “concealed.” The police officer here saw only the butt of the pistol, whereas in Cope, part of the frame also was visible. In both cases, the guns were jammed into car seat cracks. In my view the issue of whether the pistol here was or was not “concealed” should be resolved by the jury. See also Cope at 1272 (Sharp, W., J.,. dissenting).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorelus v. State, 747 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1999)…PARIENTE, J. We have for review State v. Dorelus, 720 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), which expressly and directly conflicts with Carpenter v. State, 593 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), and Taylor v. State, 552 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).1 We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Dorelus and his codefendant Presume were stopped for a minor traffic infraction. [*370] “While standing outside the vehicle,” the arresting officer “observed the shiny s…
-
Lane v. State, 567 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…. 2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Mitchell v. State, 494 So. 2d 498, 499-500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The same analysis has been applied where the butt of a pistol was visible between the driver’s seat and the center part of the vehicle. See Taylor v. State, 552 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), review denied, 563 So. 2d 634 (Fla.1990). By contrast, in the present case only a small portion of the weapon was visible. The motion to suppress was correctly denied. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Cope v. State, 523 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)