Colomo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Colomo v. State

687 So. 2d 880, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 248, 1997 WL 24313

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 24, 1997

DocketNo. 95-03411

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 687 So. 2d 880 (Colomo 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

Colomo v. State, 687 So. 2d 880, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 248, 1997 WL 24313 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.

Lisa Colomo appeals her sentence for possession of cocaine following the denial of her motion to suppress, at which time, she entered a plea of nolo contendere and reserved her right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. We reverse.

Colomo was a passenger in a vehicle stopped at 2:00 a.m. for a traffic infraction. We agree with the trial court’s finding that the circumstances created a reasonable suspicion that Colomo could be armed with a dangerous weapon sufficient to justify a pat-down search pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See also State v. Webb, 398 So.2d 820 (Fla.1981); § 901.151, Fla.Stat. (1993). While conducting the pat-down of Colomo, the officer felt a small, hard object, approximately one and one-half inches in diameter in Colo-mo’s left front pocket. Unable to determine whether or not the object was a weapon, he squeezed it. The officer then placed his hand inside Colomo’s pocket and, still unable to determine the nature of the object, he [881]*881removed it from Colomo’s pocket. The object was a small compact containing cocaine.

The officer exceeded the scope of the pat-down when he reached into Colomo’s pocket to seize the container. The officer’s testimony provided nothing to justify a belief that this small container was a weapon. Under the facts of this case, the officer could not reasonably have believed that the object in Colomo’s pocket was a weapon. See Jordan v. State, 544 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court’s denial of Colomo’s motion to suppress was error.

Reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to grant Colomo’s motion to suppress.

ALTENBERND and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.

Lisa Colomo appeals her sentence for possession of cocaine following the denial of her motion to suppress, at which time, she entered a plea of nolo contendere and reserved her right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. We reverse.

Colomo was a passenger in a vehicle stopped at 2:00 a.m. for a traffic infraction. We agree with the trial court’s finding that the circumstances created a reasonable suspicion that Colomo could be armed with a dangerous weapon sufficient to justify a pat-down search pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See also State v. Webb, 398 So.2d 820 (Fla.1981); § 901.151, Fla.Stat. (1993). While conducting the pat-down of Colomo, the officer felt a small, hard object, approximately one and one-half inches in diameter in Colo-mo’s left front pocket. Unable to determine whether or not the object was a weapon, he squeezed it. The officer then placed his hand inside Colomo’s pocket and, still unable to determine the nature of the object, he [881]*881removed it from Colomo’s pocket. The object was a small compact containing cocaine.

The officer exceeded the scope of the pat-down when he reached into Colomo’s pocket to seize the container. The officer’s testimony provided nothing to justify a belief that this small container was a weapon. Under the facts of this case, the officer could not reasonably have believed that the object in Colomo’s pocket was a weapon. See Jordan v. State, 544 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court’s denial of Colomo’s motion to suppress was error.

Reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to grant Colomo’s motion to suppress.

ALTENBERND and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 So. 2d 880, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 248, 1997 WL 24313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colomo-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack