Moss v. State, 86-310
| Decision Date | 15 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-310,86-310 |
| Citation | 512 So.2d 328,12 Fla. L. Weekly 2246 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2246 Roger MOSS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Henry H. Harnage, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Fariba Komeily, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUBBART, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is affirmed upon a holding that (a) the police temporarily stopped the defendant Roger Moss based on reasonable suspicion, and, accordingly, the said temporary stop was a reasonable seizure of the person under the Fourth Amendment; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Bell, 382 So.2d 119 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); State v. Stevens, 354 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), (b) the defendant Roger Moss voluntarily consented to a search of a bag held by him which revealed the presence of a drill, adding machine, and coins, thereby making the said search reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Denehy v. State, 400 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla.1980); Pastor v. State, 498 So.2d 962, 964 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); State v. Fuksman, 468 So.2d 1067, 1068-69 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), (c) the police had probable cause to believe that the property in the defendant's bag was stolen and, accordingly, had probable cause to arrest the defendant for unlawful possession of stolen property, and to seize said property, which lawful arrest is in no way affected by the arresting officer's decision to characterize the arrest as one for loitering and prowling; Wright v. State, 471 So.2d 155, 158 (Fla.3d DCA 1985); Thomas v. State, 395 So.2d 280, 281 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); Gibson v. State, 368 So.2d 667, 668 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Hoskins v. State, 208 So.2d 145, 146 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 214 So.2d 622 (Fla.1968); see D.A. v. State, 471 So.2d 147 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), (d) the police lawfully obtained fingerprints from the defendant Roger Moss after lawfully arresting him; see Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969); Bynum v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 109, 274 F.2d 767 (1960), and (e) the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress the physical evidence and fingerprints seized from the defendant herein.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Scott
...not rendered unlawful by the fact that the officers initially characterized the offense as loitering and prowling. See Moss v. State, 512 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); State v. Irvin, 483 So.2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 491 So.2d 279 (Fla.1986); Wright v. State, 471 So.2d 155 (Fla.......
-
Hawxhurst v. State
...See also D.S. v. State, 122 So.3d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ; Freeman v. State, 909 So.2d 965 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) ; Moss v. State, 512 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).Because we affirm on this basis, we do not address the merits of the State's cross-appeal.Appeal affirmed. Cross-appeal dismissed a......
-
Antela v. State, 86-1264
...had a reasonable basis to stop Antela temporarily. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Moss v. State, 512 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). No search and no detention occurred until after the officer learned of the outstanding warrant and had lawfully arrested Antel......