DANIEL R. MARSHALL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2002-10-11
No. 2D00-438
CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ„ concur.
827 So. 2d 392 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2002) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
FULMER, Judge.

FULMER, Judge.

Daniel R. Marshall appeals from the judgment and order of probation for possession of methamphetamine following the trial court’s denial of his dispositive motion to suppress. The issue presented in this appeal is whether the totality of the circumstances surrounding a traffic stop gave rise to a reasonable belief on the part of the officers that Marshall was armed with a dangerous weapon. See Howell v. State, 725 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Premo v. State, 610 So. 2d 72, 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). It was undisputed that Marshall did not make any furtive movements, he cooperated with the officers, and nothing about his appearance or actions suggested that he had a dangerous weapon on his person. Because the officers did not articulate a reasonable belief that Marshall was armed with a dangerous weapon, we reverse. See Sutton v. State, 698 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ„ concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • D.O. v. State, 832 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
    …ned that she searched D.O. because she did not know what was in his pocket. As we have previously held, if an officer does not articulate a reasonable belief that a person is armed with a dangerous weapon, suppression is required. Marshall v. State, 827 So. 2d 392, 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Sutton v. State, 698 So. 2d 1321, 1323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Without some indication that D.O. had a weapon, there was no valid basis for the search. See Sutton, 698 So. 2d at 1323. The fact that the officer seized contraband…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw