KENNETH COOPER, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• E.B. v. State, 866 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
  …tly recognized was not a weapon. Moreover, the incriminating character of the object became apparent only after the officer manipulated it, produced a rattling sound, seized the container, and opened it to examine the contents. In Harford v. State, 816 So. 2d 789, 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), the court discussed whether, after an officer discovered that the object he removed from the defendant’s front pocket was merely a cigarette box, he was justified in opening it for further examination of the contents. The c…
• Ingram v. State, 928 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
  …§ 12, Fla. Const.; Perez v. State, 620 So. 2d 1256 (Fla.1993). In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we view the evidence and its reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to affirming the trial court’s ruling. See Harford v. State, 816 So. 2d 789, 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). First, the traffic stop was unchallenged,, and the record clearly demonstrates that Sergeant Johnson was justified in stopping Appellant after observing his vehicle weaving and then running com [*429] pletely off the road.…
• Johnson v. State, 995 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
  …9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom must be viewed “in a light most favorable to affirming the trial court’s rulings.” Ingram v. State, 928 So. 2d 423, 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also Harford v. State, 816 So. 2d 789, 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). When applying the facts to the law regarding search and seizure, an appellate court is bound to all United States Supreme Court decisions on the subject. See Bemie v. State, 524 So. 2d 988, 991 (Fla.1988); Green v. State, 8…

Authorities Cited

• Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
• Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
• Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)