DANIEL LEE WARE, 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.
Affirmed conviction for cocaine possession where the trial court properly denied suppression of the cocaine found during a lawful Terry patdown, and any error in failing to suppress post-discovery statements was harmless because the statements were not material to the possession conviction.
Officers lawfully conducted a patdown based on articulable suspicion that the defendant could be armed, and any error in failing to suppress post-discovery statements was harmless because the statements were not material to the possession conviction.
[1] A patdown search is justified when officers possess an articulable suspicion that a suspect could be armed with a dangerous weapon under Terry v. …
[2] Failure to suppress statements obtained in violation of Miranda rights is harmless error when the statements are not material to the conviction.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“they possessed an articulable suspicion that Ware could be armed with a dangerous weapon”
Justifying the lawfulness of the patdown under Terry v. Ohio
Daniel Lee Ware was stopped by law enforcement officers who conducted a patdown and discovered a cocaine pipe. After the discovery, officers questione…
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 Articulable Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
Daniel Lee Ware appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Since defense counsel conceded the validity of the stop of Ware, we agree with the state that any issue regarding that point has not been preserved for our review.
We affirm the denial of Ware’s motion to suppress with regard to the cocaine. We find the law enforcement officers were justified in conducting a patdown of Ware because they possessed an articulable suspicion that Ware could be armed with a dangerous weapon. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
With regard to the statements Ware made in response to the officer’s query after the patdown produced the cocaine pipe, the state agrees with Ware that they should have been suppressed because the officers had not advised him of his Miranda1 rights.
Although the trial court improperly denied Ware’s motion to suppress the statements, we do not reverse because the statements were made after the cocaine was discovered and they were not material to Ware’s conviction of possession of cocaine.
Affirm.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and SILVERTOOTH, LYNN N., Senior Associate Judge, concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)