Harvey v. State

502 So. 2d 1305, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 598
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 23, 1987
DocketBK-315
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 502 So. 2d 1305 (Harvey 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
Harvey v. State, 502 So. 2d 1305, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 598 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

502 So.2d 1305 (1987)

Kenneth James HARVEY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BK-315.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 23, 1987.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and Terry P. Lewis, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a judgment and sentence entered upon a plea of nolo contendere to trafficking in cocaine, possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana, and carrying a concealed firearm. The plea was entered after a motion to suppress was denied but stipulated by the parties to be dispositive of the case.

On appeal, appellant attempts to distinguish State v. Dilyerd, 467 So.2d 301 (Fla. 1985), on the ground that, in the instant case, the police officer's testimony — that he was in fear of his safety because he observed furtive movements by the passenger — was contradicted by two witnesses, appellant and his passenger. No contradictory testimony was presented in Dilyerd, and the Supreme Court held that a police officer may conduct a limited search of the passenger compartment of a car if *1306 the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which reasonably warrant the officer's belief that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons. Id. at 305. Even though there is testimony contradicting the officer in this case, we find Dilyerd controlling on the basis that the judge, who observed the witnesses' demeanors, believed the officer, and we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

WENTWORTH and ZEHMER, JJ., and J. LEWIS HALL, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

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

Related

Domanico v. State
660 So. 2d 393 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
State v. Brown
592 So. 2d 308 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
State v. Lopez
590 So. 2d 1045 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Gonzalez v. State
578 So. 2d 729 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Garcia v. State
561 So. 2d 471 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
502 So. 2d 1305, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.