IVAN QUEVEDO, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed denial of motion to suppress evidence from a Terry frisk, holding that reasonable suspicion of burglary alone justifies a pat-down search for weapons.
Reasonable suspicion that a person committed burglary justifies a Terry pat-down and frisk for weapons without additional articulable suspicion of armed status.
[1] Reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is committing burglary justifies a Terry pat-down and frisk for weapons without requiring additional articulable suspi…
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 intelligence“Courts have been inclined to view the right to frisk as being 'automatic' whenever the suspect has been stopped upon the suspicion that he has committed, was committing, or was about to commit a type of crime for which the offender would likely be armed...This includes such suspected offenses as...burglary.”
Discussing the automatic nature of frisk authority when burglary is suspected.
Quevedo was reasonably suspected of committing a burglary. During a Terry stop and frisk investigation of that burglary, contraband was discovered.…
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 Terry Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
As we held in Russell v. State, 415 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied, 427 So. 2d 737 (Fla.1983), with respect to the crime of robbery, the mere fact that one, like Quevedo, is reasonably suspected of having committed a burglary in itself justifies a Terry pat-down and frisk for weapons. United States v. Moore, 817 F. 2d 1105 (4th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 965, 108 S.Ct. 456, 98 L.Ed.2d 396 (1987); People v. Myles, 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 123 Cal.Rptr. 348 (1975); 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.4(a), at 506 (2d ed.1987), and cases collected at note 29. (“[Cjourts have been inclined to view the right to frisk as being ‘automatic’ whenever the suspect has been stopped upon the suspicion that he has committed, was committing, or was about to commit a type of crime for which the offender would likely be armed, whether the weapon would be used to actually commit the crime, to escape if the scheme went awry, or for protection against the victim or others involved. This includes such suspected offenses as ... burglary.”). This rule validates the order below denying a motion to suppress the contraband discovered during a founded Terry stop and frisk which was conducted in an investigation of that crime.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Clark, 721 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ut to commit a type of crime for which the offender would likely be armed, whether the weapon would be used to actually commit the crime, to escape if the scheme went awry, or for protection against the victim or others involved.’” Quevedo v. State, 554 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (quoting 3 LaFave, supra § 9.4(a), at 506 (2d ed.1987)). This court has held that such a protective pat-down is proper where the suspected crime is burglary. See 554 So. 2d at 620. As the Quevedo argument was not brought to the t…
-
R.A. v. State, 725 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…is often said nowadays, what we do “sends a message” to members of the community, these are very bad messages to send, indeed. I therefore believe, with the trial court, that the Terry stop was appropriate. Because our decisions, Quevedo v. State, 554 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see State v. Clark, 721 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), establish that such a stop for suspected burglary justifies a pat-down, which, in this case, to the surprise of no one (but the majority) actually yielded the fruits of the…
-
State v. K.L., 626 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…months later, the court sua sponte disposed of the ease. Over the State’s objection, the court issued a judicial warning even though the juvenile was not present in court. The net effect was a dismissal of the charge. Here, as in State v. Stewart, 554 So. 2d 620, 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), “the trial court interfered with the exercise of prosecu-torial discretion in determining that the case was not appropriate for prosecution.” The law is well settled that once the prosecutor has determined that a particular…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Globe Tankers, 484 U.S. 965 (U.S. 1987)
- Scott v. Drake, 484 U.S. 965 (U.S. 1987)
- United States v. Moore, 817 F.2d 1105 (4th Cir. 1987)
- Russell v. State, 415 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)