State v. Wolcoff

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Wolcoff

514 So. 2d 394, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2411, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10609

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 14, 1987

DocketNo. 87-0615

StatusPublished

This text of 514 So. 2d 394 (State v. Wolcoff) 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. Wolcoff, 514 So. 2d 394, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2411, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10609 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case arises from the state’s appeal of the granting of a motion to suppress.

Appellee, Burton Sanford Wolcoff, was stopped in a high crime area of Fort Laud-erdale at approximately 4:50 in the morning for obstructing traffic in violation of section 316.2045(1), Florida Statutes (1985). Because the record supports the trial court’s determination that there was no violation of the above statute, we agree with the trial court’s finding that the stop and resulting search were improper. Cf, State v. Clark, 511 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Additionally, we find no merit in the state’s argument regarding consent. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur. STONE, J., dissents without opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case arises from the state’s appeal of the granting of a motion to suppress.

Appellee, Burton Sanford Wolcoff, was stopped in a high crime area of Fort Laud-erdale at approximately 4:50 in the morning for obstructing traffic in violation of section 316.2045(1), Florida Statutes (1985). Because the record supports the trial court’s determination that there was no violation of the above statute, we agree with the trial court’s finding that the stop and resulting search were improper. Cf, State v. Clark, 511 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Additionally, we find no merit in the state’s argument regarding consent. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur. STONE, J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

514 So. 2d 394, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2411, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wolcoff-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack