STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EFRAIN T. MENDEZ, 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 a trial court's suppression of marijuana evidence seized from a truck during a lawful police encounter. The appellate court reversed, holding that no founded suspicion was required because the defendant was not detained before the officer observed the marijuana in plain view.
The court held that no founded suspicion was necessary because the defendant was not illegally detained before the officer observed the marijuana in plain view. The marijuana was properly seized as a result of a lawful, permissible police encounter.
[1] A police officer's observation of a person standing beside a truck parked between two closed businesses in a high-crime area known for burglaries does not, by itself, con…
[2] A police officer may approach an individual in a public place and ask questions without any level of suspicion.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“no 'founded suspicion' was necessary because the defendant was not illegally detained before the police officer saw the marijuana in plain view”
Establishes the core holding that lawful encounters do not require founded suspicion for initial contact
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt 1:40 a.m., while patrolling an area with recent business burglaries, police observed the defendant standing beside a parked truck between two close…
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 Founded Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
We reverse the order granting defendant’s motion to suppress.
At 1:40 a.m., while patrolling a neighborhood which had been plagued by a rash of business burglaries, police observed the defendant standing beside a truck parked between two closed businesses. As the police officer turned into the parking lot, the defendant got into the passenger side of the truck. The officer stopped his car, walked up to the truck and asked the defendant why he was in the parking lot. The defendant responded that his friend, the driver of the truck, was behind the building going to the bathroom. When the officer asked the defendant for identification, the defendant stepped out of the truck, but had no identification with him. Nothing in the record indicates that the officer asked the defendant to exit the truck. When the defendant stepped out of the truck, the officer observed, inside the truck, a clear plastic bag containing a leafy substance which the officer, based upon his knowledge, training and experience, recognized as marijuana.
Defendant moved to suppress the marijuana seized from the parked truck, contending that there was no “founded suspicion” to support the initial stop. However, under the facts of this case, no “founded suspicion” was necessary because the defendant was not illegally detained before the police officer saw the marijuana in plain view. Burke v. State, 465 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Since this was a permissible police encounter, and the police officer saw the marijuana in plain view, the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. Accordingly, the order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress is reversed.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Woodson v. State, 579 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…ave (cites omitted). (Emphasis supplied). See also Jenkins v. State, 567 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (Cobb, J., dissenting); State v. Davis, 543 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); State v. Tarbox, 541 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); State v. Mendez, 540 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Sommer v. State, 465 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Burke v. State, 465 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Madrid v. State, 409 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Login v. State, 394 So. 2d 183, 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Carter v. S…
-
Jenkins v. State, 567 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. State v. Rawlings, 391 So. 2d 269 at 270 (Fla. 4th DCA), petition denied, 399 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1981). J.C.W. at 307. See also, State v. Davis, 543 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); State v. Mendez, 540 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). I would affirm.…
-
Hundley v. State, 556 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. State v. Mendez, 540 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). WIGGINTON, MINER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Burke v. State, 465 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)