State v. Gary

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Gary

466 So. 2d 1199, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 914, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13337

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 9, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1442

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 466 So. 2d 1199 (State v. Gary) 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

State v. Gary, 466 So. 2d 1199, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 914, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13337 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The search of the defendant’s handbag which yielded narcotics cannot be sustained under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), as the state argues, because the officers in question unjustifiably went into the purse without first conducting a prior external pat-down for weapons, which is required (and would have revealed that she was not carrying a firearm as the police supposedly feared). J.R.H. v. State, 428 So.2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Jamison v. State, 455 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Fraley v. State, 374 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); sec. 901.-151(5), Fla.Stat. (1983); see Baldwin v. State, 418 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Blackburn v. State, 414 So.2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Raleigh v. State, 404 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); M.A.P. v. State, 403 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Meeks v. State, 356 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 892 (Fla.1978). This determination makes it unnecessary to treat any of the other deficiencies in the search found by the trial court in entering the order of suppression under review.

Affirmed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The search of the defendant’s handbag which yielded narcotics cannot be sustained under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), as the state argues, because the officers in question unjustifiably went into the purse without first conducting a prior external pat-down for weapons, which is required (and would have revealed that she was not carrying a firearm as the police supposedly feared). J.R.H. v. State, 428 So.2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Jamison v. State, 455 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Fraley v. State, 374 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); sec. 901.-151(5), Fla.Stat. (1983); see Baldwin v. State, 418 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Blackburn v. State, 414 So.2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Raleigh v. State, 404 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); M.A.P. v. State, 403 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Meeks v. State, 356 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 892 (Fla.1978). This determination makes it unnecessary to treat any of the other deficiencies in the search found by the trial court in entering the order of suppression under review.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

466 So. 2d 1199, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 914, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gary-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack