State v. Quinn
| Decision Date | 20 January 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1302,87-1302 |
| Citation | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 237,518 So.2d 474 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 237 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Joseph Michael QUINN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Deborah Guller, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We affirm. We find that the trial court did not err in granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. No question of fact remains as to whether the firearm was concealed within the meaning of section 790.001(2), Florida Statutes (1985). The state acknowledged that the arresting officer immediately recognized the object as a firearm from his position outside the defendant's car. Also, no evidence was offered to suggest that the officer's training and experience contributed to his identification of the firearm. See Ensor v. State, 403 So.2d 349, 354 (Fla.1981).
Furthermore, we decline to apply Russell v. Russell, 507 So.2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), to criminal cases.
AFFIRMED.
On the merits, I see enough similarity in this bare boned case to Mitchell v. State, 494 So.2d 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), to concur with the majority, although I am uncomfortable with the short notice given the state and the lack of authority discussed at the hearing on the motion to dismiss.
I use the phrase "bare boned" because the relevant facts relate to the officer's probable cause affidavit and are briefly stated in the statement of the case and facts in the appellee's answer brief, to which no demurrer was made by the state in its reply brief. The statement includes the following:
At the motion hearing the state based its argument on the probable cause affidavit of the arresting officer. This affidavit said the arresting officer noticed the gun sticking out from under a sheet which was being used as a seat cover and that the affiant "immediately recognized" the object as a firearm. The court said that the facts of the probable cause affidavit dispelled any issue of fact, since the affidavit said that the officer immediately recognized it as a gun.
The state argued that the facts were "subject to interpretation" and offered to subpoena the police officer to testify but the state needed a five day continuance to get the officer to court. The court asked the state why it must order an adjournment to take the officer's testimony unless the officer was going to testify to something other than he swore in the affidavit.
The state agreed that the officer would not testify to anything contrary to the affidavit but again asked the court to grant a continuance to take the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dorelus v. State
...what the officer has reported he or she observed. See, e.g., Carpenter, 593 So.2d at 607; Hardy, 610 So.2d at 41; State v. Quinn, 518 So.2d 474, 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). However, "magic words" from the arresting officer that he or she "immediately recognized" the object as a firearm are not......
-
Lane v. State
...the meaning of the statute. See Cope v. State, 523 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 531 So.2d 1355 (Fla.1988); State v. Quinn, 518 So.2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Mitchell v. State, 494 So.2d 498, 499-500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The same analysis has been applied where the butt of a pis......
-
State v. Dorelus, 97-1724
...236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Lane v. State, 567 So.2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Appellee primarily relies on State v. Quinn, 518 So.2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), in which this court affirmed the dismissal of an information where a gun sticking out from under the sheet being used as a......
-
State v. Nessim
...Judge. We grant the state's motion for rehearing en banc in order to maintain consistency with our prior opinion in State v. Quinn, 518 So.2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The state has appealed a trial court order "granting defendant's motion to dismiss" for outrageous governmental misconduct. ......