WILLIAM ROBERTSON, 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.
Court affirmed conviction for carrying concealed firearm and marijuana possession, holding that the defendant's conduct in questioning the undercover officer's identity and directing the drug sale provided founded suspicion for the stop and seizure.
A defendant's conduct in questioning an undercover officer's identity and directing a companion to proceed with a drug sale provides founded suspicion for a lawful stop and seizure.
[1] A defendant's questioning of an undercover officer's identity prior to directing a drug sale provides founded suspicion for a lawful investigative stop.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Robertson was tried and convicted of carrying a concealed firearm and possession of marijuana following a buy-bust operation in which he quest…
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 Seizure Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant William Robertson was tried by jury and convicted of carrying a concealed firearm and possession of marijuana. He challenges the pre-trial order denying his motion to suppress the firearm and marijuana seized during a “buy-bust” operation. We find that the trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress upon its finding that appellant was not merely a bystander but an active participant in the sale of drugs to an undercover officer. Appellant’s conduct in questioning the identity of the undercover officer prior to the sale to ascertain whether he was a policeman and then directing his companion to “go ahead” and sell the marijuana to the officer furnished a founded suspicion for the stop that led to his arrest for the charged offenses. See State v. Walls, 585 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Kearse v. State, 384 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
We further find that appellant was properly tried in “Division FS”, a criminal court section presided over by senior judges, which he argues was improperly created by administrative order of the Chief Judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit rather than by local rule approved by the Supreme Court. See Heaton v. State, 711 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Mann v. Chief Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 696 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.1997).
AFFIRMED.
POLEN, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalo Castrillon v. State, 821 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…nistrative rule which is necessary to properly administer court affairs is valid, even if it creates a “subdivision” of a court. See Mann v. Chief Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 696 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.1997); City of Coral Gables; Robertson, 719 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(administrative order creating division valid); Heaton v. State, 711 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(habitual offender division is specialized subdivision and may be created by administrative order). In this case, what has been c…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Newman v. State, 384 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Mann v. Chief Judge OF THE Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 696 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 1997)
- Heaton v. State, 711 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- State v. Walls, 585 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)