Gillespie v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gillespie v. State

404 So. 2d 152, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21143

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 22, 1981

DocketNo. 79-2233

StatusPublished

This text of 404 So. 2d 152 (Gillespie 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

Gillespie v. State, 404 So. 2d 152, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21143 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction of possession of Methaqualone. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying the motions to suppress evidence seized from an automobile belonging to appellant since such search was unlawful and the arrest of appellant and his subsequent statements were the direct products of the unlawful seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

Appellant strongly argued that Pomerantz v. State, 372 So.2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. den., app. dism., 386 So.2d 642 (Fla.1980), is controlling. We cannot agree. We reject the contention on the grounds that (1) the initial stop was proper under State v. Hetland, 366 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), aff’d, 387 So.2d 963 (Fla.1980); (2) the police officer directed appellant to pull over to an area where the appellant was intending to go; (3) the search was conducted by a private employer; unlike in Pomerantz the police officer here took no active participation in the search.

We have carefully considered all of appellant’s contentions in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410 (Fla.1978); Bernovich v. State, 272 So.2d 505 (Fla.1973); Wigfall v. State, 323 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction of possession of Methaqualone. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying the motions to suppress evidence seized from an automobile belonging to appellant since such search was unlawful and the arrest of appellant and his subsequent statements were the direct products of the unlawful seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

Appellant strongly argued that Pomerantz v. State, 372 So.2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. den., app. dism., 386 So.2d 642 (Fla.1980), is controlling. We cannot agree. We reject the contention on the grounds that (1) the initial stop was proper under State v. Hetland, 366 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), aff’d, 387 So.2d 963 (Fla.1980); (2) the police officer directed appellant to pull over to an area where the appellant was intending to go; (3) the search was conducted by a private employer; unlike in Pomerantz the police officer here took no active participation in the search.

We have carefully considered all of appellant’s contentions in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410 (Fla.1978); Bernovich v. State, 272 So.2d 505 (Fla.1973); Wigfall v. State, 323 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

404 So. 2d 152, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gillespie-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack