THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ALFONSO QUIROGA, 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.
Florida appealed a suppression order in a concealed firearm case where a plainclothes officer searched three men at a telephone booth and found guns on each. The appellate court reversed the suppression order, finding the trial court misapplied the law despite crediting the officer's account of events.
The court reversed the suppression order, holding that the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress despite crediting the officer's testimony about the circumstances justifying the search.
[1] A police officer may conduct a search incident to arrest when the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime.
[2] A police officer's observation of a person reaching quickly toward their side, after being stopped by police, can provide reasonable suspicion to believe the person is re…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial judge misapprehended the law”
The appellate court's conclusion that despite the trial judge crediting the officer's version of events, the judge applied incorrect legal standards in granting the suppression motion.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn July 27, 1971, at approximately 7:00 P.M., three men including appellee Quiroga were at a pay telephone booth in Miami. Two plainclothes officers o…
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 Carrying A Concealed Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
The state of Florida has brought this interlocutory appeal from an order of the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, suppressing evidence, a firearm, seized from the appellee as a result of a search of his person by a Miami plainclothes police officer.
The appellee and two other persons were charged with carrying a concealed firearm.
The facts as they were testified to by the appellees at the hearing on the motion to suppress appear to be that at about 7:00 P. M. on July 27, 1971, while in the company of two other persons, i. e., Roniel Medina and Rafael Isaac, the appellee, Alfonso Quiroga, was using a pay telephone. Two plainclothes officers who observed them parked their police car and Officer Coll pulled out his gun and said “Don’t move and turn around and put your hands against the wall because I am going to blow your head off and kill you.” Thereafter all three of the parties were searched and a gun was taken from the person of each of them.
The appellee’s version of what took place in connection with the search was in conflict with the testimony of the police officers who made the searches and arrests. Officer Coil’s testimony shows that he saw the three men at a telephone booth at N. W. 7th Street and 23rd Court in Miami. He recognized one of the men “. as a known activist and member of Alpha 66.” He also recognized the car which was parked at the telephone booth as being the same car that had been parked at the scene of a shooting incident which he had investigated earlier that evening. The officer stopped his police car, got out and identified himself as a police officer and asked each man for identification. They identified themselves and appellee Quiroga admitted ownership of the automobile in question.
Thereafter, as Officer Coll started toward his police car to “check them out by radio,” one of the three men, i. e., Rafael Isaac, reached toward his left side, fast. It was then that Officer Coll pulled out his gun and told all three men that they were under arrest and to go stand against the wall. Whereupon he took guns from Isaac and the other two men. Each was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.
It is the state’s contention that the trial judge erred in granting appellee’s motion to suppress. We agree and reverse.
*846The trial court, in granting the motion to suppress, stated that if she were in the same situation, she would have done exactly as the officer had done, which was to search all three persons when one made a fast movement as if to pull out a gun. These observations of the trial court indicate that the court believed the officer’s testimony about one defendant making a fast move as if to reach for a gun and not the testimony of Mr. Quiroga, but the trial judge misapprehended the law.
Therefore, upon the authority of the rules stated in State v. Gustafson, Fla. 1972, 258 So.2d 1, affirming in part and reversing in part Gustafson v. State, Fla. App.1971, 243 So.2d 615, we reverse the order suppressing the automatic firearm seized from appellee and remand for further proceedings.'
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Wade, 673 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ound the officer’s testimony to be credible, the trial court commits reversible error when it grants a motion to suppress based upon the conflicting testimony of the officer and the defendant regarding the incident in question. See State v. Quiroga, 267 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Here, the trial court committed reversible error where, in its written order, the court found the detective’s testimony credible, yet granted the defendant’s motion to suppress based upon its determination that information from a…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Gustafson, 258 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)
- Gustafson v. State, 243 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)