K.L., A CHILD, 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 a police officer demanding a suspect disclose or produce a concealed object constitutes a search, and if conducted without a warrant or exception, it is illegal.
An off-duty officer saw a bulge in a juvenile's pocket, touched it, and asked him to remove the items, leading to the discovery of cannabis. The trial…
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 Possession Of Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The juvenile appellant challenges his adjudication of delinquency for possession of cannabis. Because the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion to suppress physical evidence, we reverse.
According to the trial court’s order, the appellant was arrested by an off-duty police officer at a nightclub when “the officer saw a bulge in the child’s pocket, touched the pocket with his hand and asked the child to remove the items.” The appellant “pulled the pack of cigarettes out of his pocket” and in so doing, “the bag of cannabis fell out of [his] pocket,” too. Based upon these facts, the trial court found the confiscation of the cannabis lawful and denied the motion.
A police officer’s demand that a suspect disclose or produce a concealed object constitutes a search. See M.J. v. State, 399 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Because the trial court expressly found that the appellant removed the contents of his pockets at the officer’s behest, the action constituted a search. As the search was neither pursuant to a warrant nor any recognized exception to the warrant requirement, the search was illegal, and the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion to suppress.
The state stipulated that the motion is dispositive of the appellant’s case. We accordingly reverse the appellant’s adjudication of delinquency and remand this case to the trial court for discharge of the appellant.
MINER, ALLEN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanders v. State, 732 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…omplied, producing the cocaine and paraphernalia. When a suspect empties his pockets in response to an officer’s directive that he do so, the legal effect is the same as if the officer had himself searched the suspect’s pockets. See K.L. v. State, 699 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The only justification offered by the appellee for the search of the appellant’s pockets in the present case is that the appellant’s consent to a pat down also provided consent for a more extensive search of his person. But “[a]…
-
C.Q. v. State, 801 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…ave had such belief. Borows’ demand that C.Q. empty his pockets exceeded the scope of a lawful protective frisk for weapons, even had C.Q. consented to a weapon search. See Thomas v. State, 644 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Harris; K.L. v. State, 699 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Pirri v. State, 428 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Accordingly, we reverse the order below which adjudicated C.Q. guilty of the misdemeanors and committed him to a level six commitment program. HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concu…
Authorities Cited
- M. J. v. State, 399 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)