Goodman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goodman v. State

728 So. 2d 1232, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4300, 1999 WL 188067

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 7, 1999

DocketNo. 98-354

StatusPublished

This text of 728 So. 2d 1232 (Goodman 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

Goodman v. State, 728 So. 2d 1232, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4300, 1999 WL 188067 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted and sentenced for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On this appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the firearm because it was discovered during an unlawful investigative stop and search of the automobile that he was driving. However, given the totality of the factual circumstances of this case, particularly the accuracy of the information supplied to the police by its documented confidential informant, we conclude that the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of the appellant’s vehicle. See Silva v. State, 641 So.2d 482, 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); State v. Hadden, 629 So.2d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Hopkins v. State, 524 So.2d 1136, 1137-38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Additionally, a preponderance of the evidence before the trial court sufficiently established that the appellant freely and voluntarily consented to a search of his vehicle once it was validly stopped by the police. See Reynolds v. State, 592 So.2d 1082, 1086 (Fla.1992); Thames v. State, 592 So.2d 733, 735-36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); State v. Fuksman, 468 So.2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We therefore find no error in the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to suppress.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted and sentenced for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On this appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the firearm because it was discovered during an unlawful investigative stop and search of the automobile that he was driving. However, given the totality of the factual circumstances of this case, particularly the accuracy of the information supplied to the police by its documented confidential informant, we conclude that the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of the appellant’s vehicle. See Silva v. State, 641 So.2d 482, 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); State v. Hadden, 629 So.2d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Hopkins v. State, 524 So.2d 1136, 1137-38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Additionally, a preponderance of the evidence before the trial court sufficiently established that the appellant freely and voluntarily consented to a search of his vehicle once it was validly stopped by the police. See Reynolds v. State, 592 So.2d 1082, 1086 (Fla.1992); Thames v. State, 592 So.2d 733, 735-36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); State v. Fuksman, 468 So.2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We therefore find no error in the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to suppress.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 So. 2d 1232, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4300, 1999 WL 188067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodman-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack