Piediscalzo v. State, 88-03282

Decision Date29 September 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-03282,88-03282
Citation14 Fla. L. Weekly 2298,549 So.2d 255
Parties14 Fla. L. Weekly 2298 Thomas PIEDISCALZO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Andrea Steffen, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Stephen A. Baker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant was charged with possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987). After the trial court denied his motion to suppress, appellant pleaded nolo contendere and reserved the right to appeal. In his first point on appeal, appellant questions the court's denial of his motion to suppress. Because we agree with appellant on that point, we need not reach his second point concerning his sentence.

The testimony at the hearing on appellant's motion to suppress indicates that two police officers observed appellant driving a truck through an area known for drug transactions at 9:00 p.m. in a predominantly black neighborhood in Punta Gorda. After cruising slowly around the same area several times without appearing to be headed toward any particular destination, the truck stopped in the roadway with its lights turned off. A black male approached the truck, which was occupied by appellant and another white male, and remained at its side for a few minutes. The truck then moved away without resuming its prior course. The officers immediately stopped the truck, believing that its movements fit the pattern of previous drug transactions they had observed in their many years of experience. One of the officers approached the driver's side of the passenger compartment and noticed a bulge in appellant's front left shirt pocket. The officer reached into appellant's pocket and removed a cigarette package, inside of which he found a crumpled up cellophane wrapper containing a piece of rock cocaine.

Under the circumstances presented in this case, the officers had a well-founded suspicion justifying their stop of appellant's vehicle. See Johnson v. State, 537 So.2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Adams v. State, 523 So.2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The Florida Stop and Frisk Law, section 901.151(2), Florida Statutes (1987), permits a law enforcement officer to stop and temporarily detain a person when circumstances indicate that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an illegal act. In Johnson and Adams, investigatory stops were upheld under circumstances similar to those presented in this case. In both cases, experienced officers observed vehicles driving around slowly in areas known...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Harford v. State, 1D01-1651.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 13 May 2002
    ...See M.A.P. v. State, 403 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (officer did not believe paper bag contained a weapon); Piediscalzo v. State, 549 So.2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (officer did not think cigarette package contained a weapon); Lencsak v. State, 579 So.2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (no evidence......
  • State v. Reyes
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 18 February 2009
    ...designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, and other hidden instruments for the assault of the officer"); Piediscalzo v. State, 549 So.2d 255, 256-257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) The officer in this case testified that he feared that Reyes might be armed and based on that fear conducted a pat-down se......
  • State, Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. DeShong, 92-01481
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 14 August 1992
    ...have a "founded suspicion" of criminal activity. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Piediscalzo v. State, 549 So.2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Sec. 901.151, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1990). Thereafter, the probable cause needed to arrest or to suspend a license for DUI ......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 18 December 1990
    ...for weapons under the principles enunciated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See Piediscalzo v. State, 549 So.2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (where officer admitted in his testimony that he did not think package contained weapon, he could not reach in vehicle a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT