JAMAL POWELL, 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.
The trial court's refusal to suppress cocaine found during a roadside stop was proper because the officer's safety concerns justified ordering the passenger to exit the vehicle.
A passenger, Jamal Powell, was ordered out of a vehicle during a traffic stop due to his fidgeting and loudness. While attempting a pat-down, the offi…
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 Pennsylvania V. Mimms cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Jamal Powell appeals the trial court’s refusal to suppress the cocaine found in his pocket after he was ordered to exit the vehicle during a road-side stop. We affirm.
Powell was a passenger in a vehicle stopped because the license tag did not match the vehicle on which it was placed. When the driver indicated that the vehicle was owned by Powell, because Powell was loud and fidgeting around inside the vehicle, the officer asked him to exit the vehicle before asking him any additional questions. As the officer was attempting to conduct a security pat-down, Powell’s pocket in his baggy shorts gaped open revealing a clear plastic bag containing several smaller bags containing a white substance which the officer, because of his experience and training, believed to be, and ultimately proved to be, cocaine.
We agree with the trial court that the concern of the officer for the safety of himself and the passenger warranted the order for Powell to exit the vehicle. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977). The cocaine, visible in Powell’s gaping pocket, was thus subject to seizure.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Andrews v. State, 962 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…he authorities to order the occupants to stand outside the vehicle and to keep their hands observable and out of their pockets until the scene was secured. See D.N. v. State, 805 So. 2d 63, 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (on mot. for reh’g); Powell v. State, 682 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Given the evidence that the officers believed they had apprehended a military deserter in the vehicle, it mattered not whether they had a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that Appellant had committed a crime. Se…
Authorities Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1977)