Abdullah v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Abdullah v. State

745 So. 2d 582, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16718, 1999 WL 1136641

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 14, 1999

DocketNo. 98-4558

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 745 So. 2d 582 (Abdullah v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

745 So. 2d 582, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16718, 1999 WL 1136641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abdullah-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack