JAMES STEVENS, 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 search of the defendant's car was lawful because the officer was reasonably justified in conducting the search to protect his person.
[1] A police officer may conduct a search of a vehicle when the officer has a reasonable belief that a weapon is concealed within the vehicle, even if the officer does not ar…
[2] The facts of a case involving a suspect observed making furtive movements toward a concealed object in a car in a high crime area may justify a search for weapons under Terry v. …
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice stopped a visibly intoxicated defendant getting into his car in a high-crime area. The defendant was observed concealing an object wrapped in a…
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 Sibron V. New York cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The single point presented on this appeal is as follows:
“Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress evidence seized from the defendant where such evidence was the product of an unreasonable and unlawful search and seizure.”
The defendant was stopped by police when he was getting into his car in what appeared to be an intoxicated condition. The incident occurred in a high crime area in the early morning hours. While checking his driver’s license, the defendant was observed making motions toward an object wrapped in a towel and concealed in the front seat. At the directions of the investigating officer, a second officer went to the other side of the car and discovered that the object was a short-barrel rifle. Defendant was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon and was sentenced to three years in prison for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
The defendant urges that the search was unlawful because the officers did not have reason to believe that a firearm was concealed in the car. While the officer did not articulate that he was fearful that the defendant had a weapon, the facts of the case are such that he was reasonably justified in conducting the search to protect his person. At oral argument, the defendant relied principally on Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968). We hold that Sibron is not applicable because that case concerned a search for heroin and no facts were brought out at that trial which would indicate that the policeman had knowledge reasonably supporting a belief that the defendant was in possession of a firearm.
We hold that the facts of the present case satisfy the function of Section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1975), and the pronouncements of the Supreme court of the United States in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See also United States v. Tharpe, 536 F. 2d 1098 (5th Cir. 1976). Cf. Phillips v. State, 284 So. 2d 485 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); and Wigfall v. State, 323 So. 2d 587 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
State v. Brown, 395 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…seat and seizing two guns thereunder — after the police had validly ordered both defendants out of the car, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977); Brown v. State, 358 So. 2d 596 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Stevens v. State, 354 So. 2d 110 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); and (c) the lack of standing contention raised by the state is not here reached as, in any event, the instant search was a reasonable one even assuming the defendants had standing to challenge the search, see Gray v. State, 177 So…
-
Hochstetler v. State, 400 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…for. Newton v. State, supra, at 299. In fact, I believe a much stronger argument could be made for extending the Mimms rationale to the protective sweep situation than to the search involved herein. . The majority also relies on Stevens v. State, 354 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Although I believe the decision in Stevens is questionable, the facts therein are also distinguishable. In that case, an intoxicated detainee in the clear view of a police officer attempted to grab an object wrapped in a towel ly…1 / 2
-
State v. Patrick, 437 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…he officer then looked underneath the towel and found a .357 Magnum. Based on those facts we held as follows: We also disagree with appellant’s second contention that the warrantless search that followed the stop was improper. In Stevens v. State, 354 So. 2d 110, 111 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), while appellant was checking his driver’s license, he “was observed making motions toward an object wrapped in a towel and concealed in the front seat.” Such facts reasonably justified conducting a search. Similarly, in Brown…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1968)
- Sautter v. Victory Auto Rental Corp., 323 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- United States v. Tharpe, 536 F.2d 1098 (5th Cir. 1976)
- Phillips v. State, 284 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)