THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARVIN FRANCOIS, 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 appeals the trial court's suppression of a firearm seized during a pat-down search of defendant Francois. The court reversed, holding that an officer's protective frisk was reasonable under Florida law when investigating a report of threats and observing a bulge on the suspect's person.
The search and seizure were reasonable. Under Florida Statutes § 901.151(5), an officer may conduct a limited frisk of a temporarily detained person if the officer has probable cause to believe the person is armed and poses a threat to safety. The officer acted reasonably in investigating the complaint, asking Francois to step outside, and conducting a protective frisk after observing a bulge.
[1] A law enforcement officer may search a person temporarily detained if the officer has probable cause to believe the person is armed with a dangerous weapon and poses a th…
[2] A police officer may ask a person to step outside a bar to minimize disturbances and for officer safety.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Whenever any law enforcement officer authorized to detain temporarily any person under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section has probable cause to believe that any person whom he has temporarily detained, or is about to detain temporarily, is armed with a dangerous weapon and therefore offers a threat to the safety of the officer or any other person, he may search such person so temporarily detained only to the extent necessary to disclose, and for the purpose of disclosing, the presence of such weapon.”
Establishes the statutory basis for the officer's authority to conduct a protective frisk under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt approximately 1 a.m., an unknown informant told a police officer that a man inside a bar was threatening to kill someone identified as 'Big Duke.' …
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 Officer Safety cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
The State appeals an order suppressing evidence on the ground that the search and seizure were unreasonable. An information was filed charging the defendant Marvin Francois with carrying a concealed firearm. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence (that is, the firearm) on the grounds that the defendant was detained and questioned by an officer at which time the officer patted down the defendant and seized a revolver and that the defendant was not known to have a dangerous reputation, nor was he under arrest at the time the search took place.
The motion came on for a hearing before the court at which the officer testified that at around one o’clock in the morning, he was approached by an unknown informant who told him that a man inside a nearby bar was threatening to kill a person identified as “Big Duke.” The officer did not know the informant and he had no reason to regard him as a reliable informant. However, the officer went into the bar where Francois was pointed out to him as the person making the threat. The officer asked Francois to step outside the bar with him and then asked Francois for identification. While questioning Francois, the officer noticed a bulge on Francois’ leg and reached down and removed a revolver. Francois was then arrested for carrying a concealed firearm.
The trial court sustained the motion to dismiss and this appeal is from that order. We reverse.
Section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1975), provides in part as follows:
“(5) Whenever any law enforcement officer authorized to detain temporarily any person under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section has probable cause to believe that any person whom he has temporarily detained, or is about to detain temporarily, is armed with a dangerous weapon and therefore offers a threat to the safety of the officer or any other person, he may search such person so temporarily detained only to the extent necessary to disclose, and for the purpose of disclosing, the presence of such weapon. If such a search discloses such a weapon or any evidence of a criminal offense it may be seized.”
It is apparent from the facts recited that the arresting officer acted reasonably in being willing to investigate a complaint of a citizen of a threat of violence inside a bar. The officer may have been braver than necessary in entering the bar to investigate but it certainly was not unreasonable for him to be willing to do so. Having entered the bar and identified the person against whom the complaint was lodged, the officer did not act unreasonably in asking Francois to step outside the bar in order to minimize the possibility of a disturbance inside the bar and in order for the officer to protect himself. See the principle of law in Common wealth of Pennsylvania v. Mimms,-U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977). Having observed the bulge and having received a warning that Francois might be armed, the officer did not act unreasonably in protecting himself by patting down the .defendant. See State v. Brooks, 281 So. 2d 55 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); Ingram v. State, 264 So. 2d 109 (Fla.4th DCA 1972); and Thomas v. State, 250 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). We believe that it is not unreasonable to allow police officers to take actions necessary to protect themselves and if a crime is revealed in the taking of such action, that crime ought not to be insulated from prosecution upon the basis of an unreasonable search.
The order appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
State v. Webb, 398 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1981)…criminal conduct, the court held that the stop was valid. Since rendering its decision in the present case, the Fourth District has modified its view regarding BOLOs based on anonymous tips. Adopting the rationale of Hetland and State v. Francois, 355 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1978), in Isham v. State, 369 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 381 So. 2d 770 (Fla.1980), it held that, based upon an anonymous call to police advising that defendant was on a certa…
-
State v. Hetland, 366 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…nstitutional rights. Understandably, in view of our decision in Hendry, the trial judge granted the motion to suppress. The state appealed, urging that this court follow the recent decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in State v. Francois, 355 So. 2d 127 (Fla.3d DCA 1978). In Francois, an unidentified individual told a police officer that a man inside a nearby bar was threatening to kill someone. The officer entered the bar, where the defendant was pointed out to him as the person making the threat…
-
Bentley v. State, 411 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…§ 901.-151, Fla.Stat. (1979); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); McNamara v. State, 357 So. 2d 410 (Fla.1978); State v. Hetland, 366 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), affirmed, 387 So. 2d 963 (Fla.1980); State v. Francois, 355 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Ingram v. State, 264 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Appellant also challenges the validity of a condition of probation prohibiting him from living with any female to whom he is not married or related, citing Wilkinson v. State,…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1977)
- Thomas v. State, 250 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- State v. Brooks, 281 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Ingram v. State, 264 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)