State v. Stevens

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Stevens

421 So. 2d 41, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21515

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 26, 1982

DocketNo. 81-2764

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 421 So. 2d 41 (State v. Stevens) 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. Stevens, 421 So. 2d 41, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21515 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress his photographic identification is reversed because the photograph in question was properly procured as a result of a search incident to defendant’s lawful arrest for the misdemeanor of furnishing a police officer with false information. In a light most favorable to the defendant, it was established that, in response to a Terry1 stop, the defendant furnished the investigating police officer with the name of Michael Robbins, while at the same time, the policeman observed the word “David” tattooed upon his forearm. Some two hours later, the same police officer stopped the defendant in connection with a second incident. The defendant stated that his name was Jeff Woodson. When the officer asked the defendant for his real name, he reinforced his previous answers in replying, “I already told you.” This disparate information afforded the police officer with authority to arrest the defendant for furnishing false information, which is a violation of Metropolitan Dade County Code Section 21-26(A)(3)(a), punishable as a misdemean- or pursuant to Section 125.69, Florida Statutes (1979). Alexander v. State, 418 So.2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA).

For the foregoing reasons, the order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress his photographic identification is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

The order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress his photographic identification is reversed because the photograph in question was properly procured as a result of a search incident to defendant’s lawful arrest for the misdemeanor of furnishing a police officer with false information. In a light most favorable to the defendant, it was established that, in response to a Terry1 stop, the defendant furnished the investigating police officer with the name of Michael Robbins, while at the same time, the policeman observed the word “David” tattooed upon his forearm. Some two hours later, the same police officer stopped the defendant in connection with a second incident. The defendant stated that his name was Jeff Woodson. When the officer asked the defendant for his real name, he reinforced his previous answers in replying, “I already told you.” This disparate information afforded the police officer with authority to arrest the defendant for furnishing false information, which is a violation of Metropolitan Dade County Code Section 21-26(A)(3)(a), punishable as a misdemean- or pursuant to Section 125.69, Florida Statutes (1979). Alexander v. State, 418 So.2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA).

For the foregoing reasons, the order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress his photographic identification is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

421 So. 2d 41, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stevens-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack