L.S. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

L.S. v. State

547 So. 2d 1032, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1980, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4684, 1989 WL 97594

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 22, 1989

DocketNo. 88-844

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 547 So. 2d 1032 (L.S. 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

L.S. v. State, 547 So. 2d 1032, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1980, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4684, 1989 WL 97594 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the respondent L.S. from a juvenile delinquency adjudication for unlawful possession of cannabis which was entered below based on a nolo contendere plea in which the respondent reserved for appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm based on a holding that (a) the arresting police officer had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when he ordered the respondent and his companion out of their car — namely, that the car with its two occupants was parked at 9:45 P.M. in a Texaco gas station which was closed for business at the time, thereby presenting a prima facie trespass of private property in a commercial area which was also generally closed for business, State v. Kibbee, 513 So.2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); (b) the police officer thereafter conducted a reasonable search of the passenger compartment of the car based on the officer’s plain view observation of two mini-manila envelopes which the officer recognized, based on his law enforcement experience, as common containers for cannabis; P.L.R. v. State, 455 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1220, 105 S.Ct. 1206, 84 L.Ed.2d 349 (1985); Lachs v. State, 366 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); see Palmer v. State, 467 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); and (c) the trial court therefore properly denied the respondent’s motion to suppress the subject cannabis which was seized from the mini-manila envelopes during the aforesaid search. We have not overlooked the state’s confession of error in this case, but are neither persuaded nor bound thereby.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the respondent L.S. from a juvenile delinquency adjudication for unlawful possession of cannabis which was entered below based on a nolo contendere plea in which the respondent reserved for appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm based on a holding that (a) the arresting police officer had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when he ordered the respondent and his companion out of their car — namely, that the car with its two occupants was parked at 9:45 P.M. in a Texaco gas station which was closed for business at the time, thereby presenting a prima facie trespass of private property in a commercial area which was also generally closed for business, State v. Kibbee, 513 So.2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); (b) the police officer thereafter conducted a reasonable search of the passenger compartment of the car based on the officer’s plain view observation of two mini-manila envelopes which the officer recognized, based on his law enforcement experience, as common containers for cannabis; P.L.R. v. State, 455 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1220, 105 S.Ct. 1206, 84 L.Ed.2d 349 (1985); Lachs v. State, 366 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); see Palmer v. State, 467 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); and (c) the trial court therefore properly denied the respondent’s motion to suppress the subject cannabis which was seized from the mini-manila envelopes during the aforesaid search. We have not overlooked the state’s confession of error in this case, but are neither persuaded nor bound thereby.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

547 So. 2d 1032, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1980, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4684, 1989 WL 97594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ls-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack