Wilson v. State, 75--706
| Decision Date | 09 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--706,75--706 |
| Parties | Robert Michael WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Warner S. Olds, Public Defender, and William W. Herring, Asst. Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Paul H. Zacks, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of possession of a concealed firearm entered pursuant to a nolo contendere plea in which appellant specifically reserved the right to question the validity of an order denying his motion to suppress from use in evidence the firearm involved. The decision in this case requires an interpretation of § 901.151, F.S.1973, commonly known as the 'Stop and Frisk law.'
On the evening of December 12, 1974, Officer Charles Shelton was assigned to patrol a shopping center and convenience stores that were high crime areas. Approximately twenty minutes before the closing time of a shopping center drug store, his suspicion was aroused when he observed appellant and a companion in a dark area behind the drug store. Appellant was trying to conceal himself. The companion was backing away toward a motorcycle which was parked behind the store, although vehicles customarily park in front of the store. The officer called appellant and his companion over to the officer's patrol car and began interrogating them relative to their identity and their purpose in being at that location; he also frisked them for weapons and found a pistol on each of them.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress since the evidence adduced did not justify the officer in stopping appellant and his companion. Additionally, appellant argues that even if the stop was permissible the frisk was not because the officer had no probable cause to believe that either appellant or his companion was armed.
A fair interpretation of the officer's testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress is that in view of the circumstances set forth above, the officer suspected that appellant and his companion were about to commit a crime involving the drug store, and he frisked them as a measure to assure his own safety. Accepting as true the facts known to and those observed by the officer on the scene, it is our opinion that the officer's stopping of appellant and his companion was reasonable. In this case the same knowledge and observations that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v. State
...the individual may also bolster the reasonableness of the officer's belief that the individual is armed and dangerous. (Wilson v. State, 324 So.2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). See also McNamara v. State, supra; Brown v. State, 358 So.2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Laster v. State, 354 So.2d 1262 (F......
-
McNamara v. State
...cause, the officers had probable cause sufficient to justify the frisking of appellant for their own safety. Cf. Wilson v. State, 324 So.2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), Williams v. State, 294 So.2d 37 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974), cert. den. 299 So.2d 602 (Fla.1974), State v. Brooks, 281 So.2d 55 (Fla. ......
-
Vasquez v. State, 78-1844
...357 So.2d 410 (Fla.1978); Davis v. State, 308 So.2d 27 (Fla.1975); State v. Francois, 355 So.2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Wilson v. State, 324 So.2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Price v. State, 318 So.2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); State v. Brooks, 281 So.2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); State v. Woodard, ......
-
L. T. S. v. State, PP-248
...appellant's motion to suppress was proper on the facts here. See State v. Stevens, 354 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Wilson v. State, 324 So.2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). I would ...