Abdullah v. State

745 So. 2d 582, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16718, 1999 WL 1136641
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 14, 1999·No. No. 98-4558·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to suppress the bag of cannabis, which he threw into a tree as he fled the police, under the theory of abandonment. See California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991); Perez v. State, 620 So.2d 1256 (Fla.1993); State v. Bartee, 623 So.2d 458 (Fla.1993). Although appellant may have been illegally stopped and thereafter seized as a result of his initial submission to police authority, the seizure was terminated once he ran from the police. Therefore, the bag he threw while fleeing was not discarded at the time appellant was “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See Johnson v. State, 689 So.2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Compare Hollinger v. State, 620 So.2d 1242 (Fla.1993).

AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD, C.J., and ERVIN and WOLF, JJ., CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Abdullah v. State, 745 So. 2d 582, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16718, 1999 WL 1136641 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

745 So. 2d 582 (Abdullah v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Huffman v. State
937 So. 2d 202 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
State v. Smith
850 So. 2d 565 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)