JACK MULLINS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1977-12-13
No. 77-1058
Before PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
353 So. 2d 605 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1977)

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.


Holding

The court held that the police officer's stop of the defendant and seizure of contraband was not an unreasonable search and seizure.


Facts & Procedural History

A police officer stopped a defendant riding a bicycle early in the morning, smelled marijuana, and saw a bag of contraband protruding from his pocket.…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The single point presented on this appeal urges that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained through a claimed unreasonable search and seizure. The record shows that a police officer stopped the defendant and spoke to him upon observing the defendant riding a bicycle slowly through a residential area in the very early morning hours. It appears without controversy that while speaking to the defendant, the officer became cognizant of a strong odor of marijuana and saw a clear, plastic bag containing a brown substance protruding from the de fendant’s shirt pocket. The officer thereupon arrested the defendant and took possession of the contraband.

Defendant claims that the stop and subsequent confiscation of the contraband was illegal, relying on the principle set forth in Vollmer v. State, 337 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

We hold that no unreasonable search appears in this record and that the fact that the police officer stopped the appellant to speak to him, under the circumstances of this case, was not an infringement of defendant’s Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); and Wilson v. Porter, 361 F. 2d 412 (9th Cir. 1966). See also Wigfall v. State, 323 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and cf. U. S. v. Alien, 472 F. 2d 145 (5th Cir. 1973).

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw