STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
VICTOR TODD CALLAWAY, 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 State appeals a trial court order suppressing evidence of a loaded handgun discovered during a pat-down search. The appellate court reverses, holding that the officer had reasonable objective grounds to fear for his safety, making the Terry frisk lawful.
The court held that the officer had reasonable objective grounds to fear for his safety and was justified in conducting the Terry frisk. The officer's testimony that it appeared something in the defendant's pocket could threaten his safety, combined with the circumstances of the late-night traffic stop and the bulky coat with large pockets and hands concealed within them, provided sufficient justification for the pat-down search.
[1] A pat-down search is justified when an officer has a reasonable belief that the suspect is armed and dangerous.
[2] A suspect's approach to an officer with hands in the pockets of a bulky coat, especially at night with limited lighting, can create a reasonable fear for the officer's sa…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 standard for evaluating the reasonableness of a frisk is "whether the officer is justified in believing the defendant is armed and dangerous."”
Establishes the legal standard applicable to Terry frisks that the appellate court applies to reverse the trial court's suppression order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Dempsey initiated a traffic stop of Callaway for driving without a visible license tag and making an illegal turn without signaling at 1:14 a.…
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 Motion To Suppress cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
The state appeals an order granting the appellee’s motion to suppress. The trial court found that the officer did not have a reasonable objective fear for his safety, and held, therefore, that the pat-down search of appellee’s outer garments, resulting in the discovery of a loaded and concealed handgun, was illegal. We reverse.
On October 28, 1989, at approximately 1:14 a.m., Officer Dempsey saw appellant, driving a vehicle with no visible license tag, make an illegal turn without signalling. He turned on the cruiser’s flashing lights indicating to the appellee that he should pull off the roadway. The appellee did so, exited his vehicle, and began to approach the officer. The officer noted that the appellee was wearing a long, bulky winter coat and that he had both his hands in the large front pockets of the heavy coat as he approached. The officer testified that the stop began as a routine traffic stop but that, as the appellee approached him, it “appeared there may be something in the pockets that could possibly threaten my safety.” The officer thereupon briefly patted the outside of the pockets, detected a flat metal object, and inquired what was in the pocket. The appellee produced a loaded handgun for which he did not have a concealed weapons permit. The officer then arrested the appellee.
The trial court found that the officer did not have the necessary reasonable suspicion to perform the pat-down search, stat ing that the officer’s reasons for the pat-down were that the appellee had on a jacket with large pockets, that the appellee had his hands in the pockets, the late hour, and the limited lighting in the area. The court’s order recites that the officer “had no reason to believe that the defendant was armed.”
For the court to hold, under the circumstances of this case, that the officer, as a matter of law, had no objective reason to fear for his safety warranting a “Terry” frisk1 is both unsupported by this record and an incorrect application of the law. Although the court stated that the officer had no reason to believe that the defendant was armed, the officer had testified, without contradiction, that it appeared there was something in the defendant’s pocket which could threaten the officer’s safety. The standard for evaluating the reasonableness of a frisk is “whether the officer is justified in believing the defendant is armed and dangerous.” State v. Webb, 398 So. 2d 820 (Fla.1981). The officer’s testimony in the case before us articulated facts which did justify a reasonable fear for his safety. There is nothing in the record, nor in the court’s findings, which in any way discredits the officer’s stated basis for his concern. Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, we think that, under the circumstances of this case, the officer would have been imprudent to fail to pat down the appellee’s coat.
We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur. . Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); § 901.151(5), Fla.Stat. (1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.J.M. v. State, 746 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…aused him to become concerned for his, and his partner’s, safety. See § 901.151(5), Fla. Stat. (1997); Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-27, 88 S.Ct. 1868; Webb, 398 So. 2d at 821; Richardson v. State, 599 So. 2d 703, 705 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); State v. Callaway, 582 So. 2d 745, 746 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Johnson v. State, 537 So. 2d 117, 119-20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). At that point, the officer conducted a pat-down, or frisk, of defendant at the point where defendant’s shirt did not meet the contour of his body. In doing so, th…
-
Smith v. State, 592 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…g that he had appellant put his hands on the car “for safety reasons.” The officer did not say that he was concerned for his safety because appellant had been concealing something that the officer feared might be a weapon. Compare State v. Callaway, 582 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) [officer’s patdown of outside of pockets upheld where suspect, wearing long bulky coat, had both hands in large front pockets and officer stated at trial that it “appeared there may be something in the pockets that could possibly…
-
Sutton v. State, 698 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…tained is armed with a dangerous weapon.” Id. This court has expressed approval of a frisk after a valid stop when the officers have observed bulges in the individual’s clothing or furtive movements by the occupants of a ear. See State v. Callaway, 582 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (finding that the officers did articulate probable cause to support pat-down because officers observed that appellant had hand in large pocket which had a bulge that looked like a weapon). See also Johnson v. State, 537 So. 2d 117…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- State v. Webb, 398 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1981)