JEFFREY PROKOP, 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.
Defendant's conviction for carrying a concealed firearm is reversed because the officer lacked founded suspicion to conduct the investigative stop that led to the discovery of the weapon.
An investigative stop requires founded suspicion, and absent such suspicion, evidence seized from the stop must be suppressed.
[1] An investigative stop of a vehicle requires founded suspicion; the mere fact that a driver sees a police officer and changes direction does not establish reasonable 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 intelligenceAn officer stopped a man standing outside a closed business; the man said he was waiting for a friend. When a truck arrived that the man identified as…
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
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals his conviction for carrying a concealed firearm. We reverse.
In the present case the officer stopped at a roadside in front of a closed business and asked a man why he was standing there. The man responded that he was waiting to be picked up by a friend. While they were speaking, a truck approached which the man identified as being that of his friend, the defendant. After defendant saw the officer, he turned and drove in another direction. The officer followed the truck and pulled it over. After the defendant stepped out of the truck, the officer conducted a pat-down search, found a revolver, and arrested the defendant for carrying a concealed weapon. Defendant’s motion to suppress the revolver was denied and he was convicted of the charge.
On these facts there was no founded suspicion to support an investigative stop. See Abraham v. State, 532 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Butterworth v. State, 522 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); McCloud v. State, 491 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Carter v. State, 454 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Foss v. State, 355 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Schneider v. State, 353 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). That being so, the firearm seized as a result of the investigatory stop should have been suppressed. The conviction for carrying a concealed firearm is reversed and the case remanded with directions to discharge the defendant from the cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 614 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…speeding, see State v. Navarro, 464 So. 2d 137, 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); and b) the trial court correctly found that the incident which gave rise to the suspicious persons report was insufficient to justify a stop of the vehicle. See Prokop v. State, 559 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to vacate the defendant’s conviction.…
Authorities Cited
- LaMarcus Edward Carter v. State, 454 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- McCLOUD v. State, 491 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Abraham v. State, 532 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Butterworth v. State, 522 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Schneider v. State, 353 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Foss v. State, 355 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)