SILVIO MENDEZ, 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.
A stop of a vehicle matching a BOLO description for an armed robbery provided founded suspicion justifying the stop, and facts discovered during the stop provided probable cause for arrest and search, affirming denial of suppression motions.
A BOLO describing a distinctive vehicle involved in an armed robbery provides founded suspicion to justify a stop, and facts discovered during the stop including a pistol and a stolen vehicle identification provide probable cause for arrest and search.
[1] A BOLO describing a distinctive vehicle involved in an armed robbery a short time and distance before a stop provides founded suspicion constitutionally justifying an inv…
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 intelligencePolice stopped a 1981-83 burgundy Cadillac with a continental kit carrying two white males based on a BOLO indicating a similar vehicle had been invol…
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 Bolo (Be On The Lookout) cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, we conclude that the contents of a BOLO which stated that a distinctive automobile, “a 1981-83 burgundy Cadillac with a continental kit” carrying two white males, had been involved in an armed robbery a short time before and a short distance away from the point that a similar vehicle was stopped by the police, provided ample “founded suspicion” which constitutionally justified the stop. See Hetland v. State, 387 So. 2d 963 (Fla.1980); State v. Delgado, 402 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Gamble, 370 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Moreover, the facts which became known to the officers after the stop, including the presence of a pistol in the front of the car and the revelation, through a check on the VIN number, that the vehicle had been stolen, supplied the probable cause necessary to support the arrest of the occupants, the ensuing search of the vehicle and the seizure of incriminating evidence which was found there. State v. Jones, 417 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Thomas v. State, 395 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). On this basis, the trial court correctly denied the motions to suppress that evidence, and the convictions entered upon nolo pleas, which reserved the right to review of that determination, are
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. State, 687 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…sonable grounds to believe that the defendant had committed a felony, because the temporal proximity of time element and the source of the BOLO information were not established. See State v. Scott, 641 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Mendez v. State, 579 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The facts do not sustain a founded suspicion by the officer. Two weeks had passed since the time of the issuance of the BOLO and no evidence exists to show that the defendant committed or was about to commit a crime. See Sumlin…
Authorities Cited
- Hetland v. State, 387 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1980)
- Thomas v. State, 395 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. Jones, 417 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Myers v. Tobe W. Myers, 370 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- MacKey v. State, 402 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)