GEORGE SANDERS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Reversed on the authority of Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991).
REVERSED.
LETTS and POLEN, JJ., concur. WARNER, J., dissents with opinion.
WARNER, Judge,
dissenting.
In denying the motion to suppress and then, on refusing to grant rehearing based on Bostick v. State, 554 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1989), the trial court specifically found that there was no evidence of intimidation of appellant by the officers boarding the bus. The court distinguished Bostick, noting that in Bostick the officers demanded the defendant’s ticket and blocked the exit. There was no indication that either tactic was used in this case, and the court defined this as an encounter rather than a detention. I think that satisfies Florida v. Bostick, and I see no need to reverse.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rudolf v. State, 851 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…larly, Rudolf should not have been convicted of grand theft of the tools in Droud’s truck.1 We recognize that the Fourth District upheld convictions for grand theft of a motor vehicle and grand theft of clothing in the same car in McInnis v. State, 605 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The McIn-nis court relied on State v. Getz, 435 So. 2d 789 (Fla.1983). However, in Johnson, the supreme court explained that the separate convictions for grand theft of a firearm and petit theft of a calculator in Getz were prop…
-
Filmore v. State, 656 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…it deems appropriate. Thus, we remand with directions that the provision for restitution be stricken, or, alternatively, that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the ability of appellant to pay restitution. See McInnis v. State, 605 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 613 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, we reverse the trial’s order and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [*536] AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. STONE and FARMER,…
-
Moore v. State, 904 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…whatever contents might be in it.”); Beaudry v. State, 809 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“Here, there is one act of taking (of the car and its contents) with no geographic or temporal separation between two acts of taking.”). Mclnnis v. State, 605 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), is not inconsistent. It can reasonably be inferred from that opinion that the vehicle was owned by one person and the merchandise by someone else. Reversed. WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991)
- Bostick v. State, 554 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1989)