B.C. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

B.C. v. State

449 So. 2d 955, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12970

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 8, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1352

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 449 So. 2d 955 (B.C. 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

B.C. v. State, 449 So. 2d 955, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12970 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The finding of delinquency and disposition under review is affirmed upon a holding that the trial court properly denied the juvenile’s pretrial motion to suppress the cannabis seized by police from the juvenile’s person because: (a) the arresting officer properly stopped the automobile in which the juvenile was riding based on a reasonable belief that the juvenile and his companions were absent from school without authorization, § 39.401(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1983), (b) the juvenile and his companions were thereupon properly ordered out of the automobile by the arresting officer, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977); and (c) the cannabis was thereafter properly seized by the arresting officer as it was observed in plain sight in a clear plastic bag in the front pocket area of the juvenile’s jacket. Neary v. State, 384 So.2d 881, 884 (Fla. 1980); Gibson v. State, 368 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The finding of delinquency and disposition under review is affirmed upon a holding that the trial court properly denied the juvenile’s pretrial motion to suppress the cannabis seized by police from the juvenile’s person because: (a) the arresting officer properly stopped the automobile in which the juvenile was riding based on a reasonable belief that the juvenile and his companions were absent from school without authorization, § 39.401(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1983), (b) the juvenile and his companions were thereupon properly ordered out of the automobile by the arresting officer, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977); and (c) the cannabis was thereafter properly seized by the arresting officer as it was observed in plain sight in a clear plastic bag in the front pocket area of the juvenile’s jacket. Neary v. State, 384 So.2d 881, 884 (Fla. 1980); Gibson v. State, 368 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

449 So. 2d 955, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bc-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack