JIMMY ROGERS BEW, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 the officer had sufficient probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the totality of the circumstances, thus the denial of the motion to suppress was proper.
An officer observed the defendant in a hot and sweaty condition, was informed by bystanders that the defendant was the person who had been reported as…
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 Illegal Search And Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
This is an appeal by the defendant from his conviction and sentence on a charge of carrying a concealed firearm. His trial was held non-jury on a pica of not guilty. The sentence imposed was for a term of one year in the Dade County Jail.
The sole point on appeal is whether or not the court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence against him, i. e., the pistol. Appellant’s counsel argues that there was no probable cause for the arrest of the appellant, therefore, the evidence admitted was the result of an illegal search and seizure and should have been suppressed.
We cannot agree. The testimony of the officer making the arrest was to the effect that the appellant was seen by the officer at the intersection of N.W. Second Avenue and Fifty-fifth Street, Miami, at about 8:00 P.M. The appellant was in a hot and sweaty condition when the officer saw him. The officer thought this condition was an indication that the appellant had been running. The appellant was pointed out to the officer by a group of people as being the person who had been doing the shooting that had been reported earlier on the police radio. The officer arrested appellant and immediately patted him down. The pistol was found concealed in appellant’s right front pocket.
We have carefully considered the facts and circumstances upon which the officer based the arrest and search and have concluded that they were sufficient to give him reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed or was being committed and the person being arrested had committed it or was committing it. Fla.Stat. § 901.15(3), F.S.A.; see also State v. Outten, Fla.1968, 206 So. 2d 392; Kekic v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 487.
For the reasons stated and upon the authorities cited, we have concluded that no error has been made to appear. Therefore, the judgment and sentence appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
BEW v. State, 297 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1974)…Certiorari denied. 289 So. 2d 465. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur. ERVIN and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.…
-
Manso v. State, 358 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…’s person after arrest. It is claimed that the officers did not have probable cause to make the arrest. We hold that probable cause clearly existed under the law as set forth in State v. Outten, 206 So. 2d 392, 397 (Fla.1968). See also Bew v. State, 289 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The second point, on behalf of both defendants, questions the sufficiency of the evidence concerning the value of the property collected in the apartment preparatory to its transportation therefrom. The evidence of value was suf…
-
Eric Banks v. State, 373 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Bew v. State, 289 So. 2d 465 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Maruca v. State, 329 So. 2d 427 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Castle v. State, 330 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1976); Coney v. State, 341 So. 2d 238 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); Coulter Electronics, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 365 So. 2d 806 (Fla.1st DCA 1978); Stat…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Barron Roofing Co., 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. Outten, 206 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1968)
- Kekic v. State, 208 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)