ANTHONY COLEMAN, 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 reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress because the officer's pat down of the appellant during a traffic stop was not justified by the circumstances, despite the officer's warrant check and vehicle inspection.
A pat down during a traffic stop is not justified absent suspicious circumstances or observation of a bulge that would reasonably lead an officer to fear the suspect is armed.
[1] A pat down conducted during a traffic stop requires either suspicious surrounding circumstances or observation of a bulge indicating the suspect may be armed to satisfy F…
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 intelligenceLaw enforcement stopped appellant for a traffic infraction. The officer ordered appellant out of the car, ran a warrant check and vehicle identificati…
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 Warrant Check cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress. Law enforcement officers stopped appellant for a traffic infraction. Although there was no probable cause that a traffic infraction had occurred, appellant conceded the legality of the stop in the circuit court. After stopping appellant, the officer ordered him out of his car. At this point, the officer ran appellant’s name and license for a warrant check, and ran the vehicle identification number to determine if the vehicle was stolen. Thereafter, the officer patted down appellant and found drugs. Under the circumstances of this case, the pat down was not justified. This is not a case where suspicious surrounding circumstances, combined with the officer’s observation of a bulge on appellant’s person justified a pat down. See L.D. v. State, 770 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Moore v. State, 874 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Ray v. State, 849 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). This case is distinguishable from Graham v. State, whereby a pat down was reasonably justified where police observed a bulge in defendant’s pocket and feared that he was armed, 495 So. 2d 852, 853 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
STONE and GROSS, JJ., and ROSENBERG, ROBIN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Vehicle Ins. Co. v. Olive Goheagan, 35 So. 3d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…761 So. 2d 1131, 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (internal citations omitted). The plaintiff has the prerogative to choose the venue, and as long as that selection is proper as provided by statute, the court will not disturb the selection. Padin v. Travis, 990 So. 2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Premier Cruise Lines, Ltd., Inc. v. Gavrilis, 554 So. 2d 659, [*1003] 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)). Although an unsworn complaint is sufficient to allege venue, absent a challenge by a defendant, when a defendant challen…
-
Fla. Gamco, Inc. v. Gale Fontaine, 68 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…(Fla. 2d DCA 1999)) (alteration in original). “The plaintiff has the prerogative ‘to select the venue and as long as that selection is one of the alternatives provided by statute, the plaintiffs selection will not be disturbed.’ ” Padin v. Travis, 990 So. 2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Premier Cruise Lines, Ltd., Inc. v. Gavrilis, 554 So. 2d 659, 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)). If the defendant contests the plaintiffs venue selection, the defendant has the burden to prove plaintiffs venue selection was…
-
State v. Herron, 68 So. 3d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…idence of Her-ron’s nervousness and Officer McGrath’s hunch that “there was something going on,” before the pat-down, were insufficient to create the requisite reasonable suspicion that Herron was armed with a dangerous weapon. See Coleman v. State, 990 So. 2d 1255, 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). We affirm the decision of the trial court.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- RAY v. State, 849 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Graham v. State, 495 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- L.D. v. State, 770 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Moore v. State, 874 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)