Gibson v. State

576 So. 2d 899, 1991 WL 38145
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 22, 1991
Docket90-01025
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 576 So. 2d 899 (Gibson 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
Gibson v. State, 576 So. 2d 899, 1991 WL 38145 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

576 So.2d 899 (1991)

Charles T. GIBSON, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

No. 90-01025.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 22, 1991.

Dee Anna Farnell, St. Petersburg, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Katherine V. Blanco, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee/cross-appellant.

FRANK, Judge.

Charles Gibson appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The state has cross-appealed the trial court's dismissal of that count in the information charging Gibson with carrying a concealed weapon. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Gibson was a passenger in a vehicle which was stopped following a traffic violation. The officer executing the stop approached the vehicle and shined his flashlight into its interior. Although the officer's testimony is conflicting, it appears that he detected the handle of a large knife. Gibson exited the vehicle pursuant to the officer's request whereupon the officer conducted a pat-down. The pat-down produced a five-inch pipe which tested positive for cocaine. Gibson was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed weapon, possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Gibson moved to dismiss the concealed weapon charge. The trial court correctly granted his motion, determining that the machete was not concealed. Based upon the officer's testimony, the trial court was justified in concluding that he knew the item was a large knife when he saw it on the floorboard. The machete was not, therefore, concealed. Cope v. State, 523 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 531 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 1988). Thus, the subsequent pat-down, deemed by the trial court to be constitutionally permissible, was undertaken pursuant to an unlawful detention and arrest. Harris v. State, 537 So.2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). We reverse the trial court's order denying Gibson's motion to suppress and we affirm the order dismissing the charge of carrying a concealed weapon.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

CAMPBELL A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.

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

Related

Dorelus v. State
747 So. 2d 368 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)
Goodman v. State
689 So. 2d 428 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
State v. Hardy
610 So. 2d 38 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
576 So. 2d 899, 1991 WL 38145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.