LISA COLOMO, 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 court held that the officer exceeded the scope of a lawful pat-down search when he reached into the defendant's pocket to seize a container that he could not reasonably believe was a weapon.
The defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic infraction. During a pat-down search, an officer felt a small, hard object in the def…
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 Plain Feel Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.
Lisa Colomo appeals her sentence for possession of cocaine following the denial of her motion to suppress, at which time, she entered a plea of nolo contendere and reserved her right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. We reverse.
Colomo was a passenger in a vehicle stopped at 2:00 a.m. for a traffic infraction. We agree with the trial court’s finding that the circumstances created a reasonable suspicion that Colomo could be armed with a dangerous weapon sufficient to justify a pat-down search pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See also State v. Webb, 398 So. 2d 820 (Fla.1981); § 901.151, Fla.Stat. (1993). While conducting the pat-down of Colomo, the officer felt a small, hard object, approximately one and one-half inches in diameter in Colo-mo’s left front pocket. Unable to determine whether or not the object was a weapon, he squeezed it. The officer then placed his hand inside Colomo’s pocket and, still unable to determine the nature of the object, he removed it from Colomo’s pocket. The object was a small compact containing cocaine.
The officer exceeded the scope of the pat-down when he reached into Colomo’s pocket to seize the container. The officer’s testimony provided nothing to justify a belief that this small container was a weapon. Under the facts of this case, the officer could not reasonably have believed that the object in Colomo’s pocket was a weapon. See Jordan v. State, 544 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court’s denial of Colomo’s motion to suppress was error. Reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to grant Colomo’s motion to suppress.
ALTENBERND and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
B.A.T. v. State, 826 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Based on the State’s proper confession of error, we reverse the finding of delinquency and the resulting disposition. See Sanders v. State, 732 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st [*538] DCA 1999); Colomo v. State, 687 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1997). Reversed.…
Authorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- State v. Webb, 398 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1981)
- Jordan v. State, 544 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)