WHISLER CHARLES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Whisler Charles appealed the denial of his motion to suppress two handguns seized during a police stop and pat-down search. The court affirmed, holding that police had reasonable suspicion to stop Charles based on his mother's report of prior gun-brandishing and death threats, and were justified in conducting a protective pat-down search when Charles acted uncooperatively.
Police had reasonable suspicion to stop Charles based on the citizen-informant tip from his mother regarding prior gun-brandishing, death threats, and his typical carrying of two guns. The officer was justified in conducting a protective pat-down search because Charles acted suspiciously and uncooperatively, and the weapons discovered during the search were properly seized and admissible as evidence.
[1] Information from a citizen-informant, such as a parent, is entitled to a presumption of reliability and may provide reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop without…
[2] The totality of the circumstances, including a report of recent brandishing of weapons and death threats, can establish reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A tip by a citizen-informant, as opposed to an anonymous tipster, is entitled to a presumption of reliability and does not require further corroboration to provide the requisite reasonable suspicion for a stop.”
Establishes that tips from known citizens like Charles's mother carry presumed reliability for reasonable suspicion purposes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles's mother reported to police that she had seen Charles brandishing guns and making death threats three days earlier, and that her daughter indi…
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 Motion To Suppress Physical Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, J.
Appellant, Whisler Charles, appeals the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence, namely, two handguns taken from him by arresting officers. Because we find that the police were justified in detaining Charles and seizing his weapons, we affirm.
The content of Charles’s mother’s report to the police — that she had seen Charles brandishing guns and making death threats three days earlier, that her daughter had indicated that he was doing the same thing on the day in question, and that Charles usually carried two guns— was enough, given the totality of the circumstances, to give the police reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop. See State v. Maynard, 783 So. 2d 226, 230 (Fla.2001) (finding that information provided by citizen informant, i.e., defendant’s mother, gave officer reasonable suspicion to conduct investigative stop.).
See also State v. Manuel, 796 So. 2d 602, 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“A tip by a citizen-informant, as opposed to an anonymous tipster, is entitled to a presumption of reliability and does not require further corroboration to provide the requisite reasonable suspicion for a stop.”).
When stopped by the police, Charles behaved uncooperatively. He refused to show his hands and kept them hidden under a towel on his lap.
Thus, we find that the officer was also justified in conducting a pat-down search of Charles to protect both himself and his fellow officer. See Brown v. State, 358 So. 2d 596, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (finding that police may conduct limited protective search for concealed weapons when officer is justified in believing that individual who is acting suspicious is armed and dangerous to officer or to others). When this search revealed two concealed handguns, the police had probable cause to arrest Charles.
Accordingly, the introduction of these weapons into evidence was entirely proper. See State v. Merritt, 519 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (finding evidence seized from a properly conducted pat-down search admissible); Williams v. State, 403 So. 2d 453, 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (holding that weapons seized in pat-down search were admissible even though defendant was not under arrest at time).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Maynard, 783 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2001)
- Brown v. State, 358 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- State v. Manuel, 796 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Williams v. State, 403 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- State v. Merritt, 519 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)