ALFONZO ALLEN, 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.
Allen was convicted of drug possession offenses after police executing a search warrant at a pool hall conducted a patdown search of him, discovering cocaine paraphernalia and marijuana. The appellate court affirmed the convictions and denial of the motion to suppress, holding that the patdown and search were constitutional under the circumstances.
The court held that the patdown and search were constitutionally permissible because the search warrant authorized the search of persons on the premises reasonably believed to be connected with the illegal drug activity, the patdown provided a proper basis for such a belief, and the circumstances—including information of armed persons on the premises—justified the temporary detention and patdown.
[1] A search warrant authorizing the search of persons present on the premises may justify the search of a person if officers have a reasonable belief that the person is conn…
[2] A patdown of a person present on premises subject to a drug search warrant can provide a reasonable belief that the person is connected with illegal drug activity.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 search warrant, the validity of which is not questioned, authorized a search of persons present on the premises upon a reasonable belief by the officers that those persons were connected with the illegal drug activity.”
Establishes the legal authority for searching persons at the premises under the warrant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice executed a valid search warrant at a pool hall to search for cocaine and currency based on information that the owner was involved in drug tran…
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 Temporary Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Acting Chief Judge.
We affirm defendant’s convictions for possession of cocaine, marijuana and drug paraphernalia and the denial of his motion to suppress a cocaine smoking device, on which was residue of an apparently illegal substance, and marijuana found during a search of defendant’s pocket.
Defendant was a patron at a pool hall for which a warrant had been issued to search for cocaine and currency, the warrant having been based upon information that the pool hall owner had been involved in drug transactions from his residence which was attached to the pool hall. Upon executing the warrant, the officers ordered the twenty to thirty-five persons present, including defendant, onto the floor face down and handcuffed them, except for the owner and a woman sitting with the owner. Upon feeling a small cylindrical object in defendant’s pocket during a patdown of him and believing, based upon his experience, that the object was a cocaine smoking device, an officer searched defendant, found what was, in fact, such a device, and saw on it a residue of what appeared to be, and was ultimately determined to be, an illegal substance. Marijuana was also found.
The search warrant, the validity of which is not questioned, authorized a search of persons present on the premises upon a reasonable belief by the officers that those persons were connected with the illegal drug activity. The patdown of defendant provided a proper basis for such a belief. Under the circumstances, which included information that there were armed persons on the premises, the patdown was constitutionally permissible, see State v. Crawford, 565 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), as was the temporary detention of defendant, see Wilson v. State, 547 So. 2d 215, 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Compare Smalls v. State, 581 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (a search warrant authorizing the search on particular premises of persons reasonably believed to be connected with the suspected illegal activity on the basis of which the warrant was issued did not justify the search of persons on the premises as to whom there was no proper basis for such a belief even if the temporary detention and patdown of such persons was justified); Julian v. State, 528 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (a search warrant authorizing the search on particular premises of persons reasonably believed to be connected with the suspected illegal activity on the basis of which the warrant was issued did not justify the search of persons on the premises as to whom there was no basis for either such a belief or a belief that anyone on the premises was armed).
We also affirm the imposition of costs. See State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139, 142-43 (Fla.1991).
PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1991)
- Julian v. State, 528 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Wilson v. State, 547 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Smalls v. State, 581 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- State v. Crawford, 565 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)