Mullins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mullins v. State

353 So. 2d 605, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17225

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 13, 1977

DocketNo. 77-1058

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 353 So. 2d 605 (Mullins 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

Mullins v. State, 353 So. 2d 605, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17225 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The single point presented on this appeal urges that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained through a claimed unreasonable search and seizure. The record shows that a police officer stopped the defendant and spoke to him upon observing the defendant riding a bicycle slowly through a residential area in the very early morning hours. It appears without controversy that while speaking to the defendant, the officer became cognizant of a strong odor of marijuana and saw a clear, plastic bag containing a brown substance protruding from the de[606]*606fendant’s shirt pocket. The officer thereupon arrested the defendant and took possession of the contraband.

Defendant claims that the stop and subsequent confiscation of the contraband was illegal, relying on the principle set forth in Vollmer v. State, 337 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

We hold that no unreasonable search appears in this record and that the fact that the police officer stopped the appellant to speak to him, under the circumstances of this case, was not an infringement of defendant’s Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); and Wilson v. Porter, 361 F.2d 412 (9th Cir. 1966). See also Wigfall v. State, 323 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and cf. U. S. v. Alien, 472 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1973).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The single point presented on this appeal urges that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained through a claimed unreasonable search and seizure. The record shows that a police officer stopped the defendant and spoke to him upon observing the defendant riding a bicycle slowly through a residential area in the very early morning hours. It appears without controversy that while speaking to the defendant, the officer became cognizant of a strong odor of marijuana and saw a clear, plastic bag containing a brown substance protruding from the de[606]*606fendant’s shirt pocket. The officer thereupon arrested the defendant and took possession of the contraband.

Defendant claims that the stop and subsequent confiscation of the contraband was illegal, relying on the principle set forth in Vollmer v. State, 337 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

We hold that no unreasonable search appears in this record and that the fact that the police officer stopped the appellant to speak to him, under the circumstances of this case, was not an infringement of defendant’s Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); and Wilson v. Porter, 361 F.2d 412 (9th Cir. 1966). See also Wigfall v. State, 323 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and cf. U. S. v. Alien, 472 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1973).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 So. 2d 605, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 17225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mullins-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack