VICTORIA MCNEIL, 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 pat-down search for weapons is impermissible without a reasonable belief that the individual is armed and dangerous.
McNeil was a passenger in a stopped car. A deputy patted her down and found cocaine, but did not ask for consent or believe McNeil was armed and dange…
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 Pat-Down Search cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Chief Judge.
Victoria McNeil pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine, reserving her right to appeal the denial of a dispositive motion to suppress. We conclude that the motion should have been granted. Therefore, we reverse McNeil’s conviction, rendering moot the sentencing issue also raised on appeal.
McNeil was a passenger in a stolen car that was stopped by the Manatee County Sheriffs Office. The car’s driver and one passenger fled; McNeil and two other occupants stayed behind. A deputy patted McNeil down and discovered cocaine in her groin area. At the suppression hear ing, the deputy testified that she did not ask for consent to search McNeil. Nor did the deputy assert that she believed McNeil to be armed and dangerous. Rather, she testified to a general concern for officer safety because “there are a lot of weapons out on the streets.”
Standing alone, a valid stop does not give officers authority to search an individual for weapons. D.L.J. v. State, 932 So. 2d 1133, 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Instead, the officer must have a reasonable belief that the individual is armed and dangerous. Id.; Premo v. State, 610 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); see also § 901.151, Fla. Stat. (2006). Routine patdown searches based on general concerns for officer safety are not constitutionally permitted. D.L.J., 932 So. 2d at 1135 (citing Hunt v. State, 700 So. 2d 94, 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). Here, the deputy did not have a reasonable belief that McNeil was armed and dangerous. Therefore, the pat-down for weapons was not permissible, and the circuit court erred in denying the motion to suppress.
Reversed and remanded for McNeil’s discharge.
WHATLEY and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dawson v. State, 58 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…e contraband or a weapon” was simply unsupported by any identifiable objective facts to lead him to that conclusion. Because “routine pat-down searches based on general concern for officer safety are not constitutionally permitted,” McNeil v. State, 995 So. 2d 525, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat-down search of Dawson and the trial court erred by denying the suppression motion. III. Conclusion We are cognizant of the enormous risk that law enforcement office…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 16 So. 3d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…the car. The deputy did not state any facts that supported a reasonable belief that Rodriguez was armed or dangerous. Such routine searches based on a generalized concern for officer safety are not constitutionally permissible. See McNeil v. State, 995 So. 2d 525, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), review denied, 990 So. 2d 1060 (Fla.2008). Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge Rodriguez. FULMER and WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Hunt v. State, 700 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- D.L.J. v. State, 932 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Nate M. Oliver & Sunrise Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Kolody, 610 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Premo v. State, 610 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)