W.R.A. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

W.R.A. v. State

497 So. 2d 1320, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2466, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10836

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 25, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1808

StatusPublished

This text of 497 So. 2d 1320 (W.R.A. 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

W.R.A. v. State, 497 So. 2d 1320, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2466, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10836 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The respondent-appellant was adjudicated delinquent based on a finding that he [1321]*1321had carried a concealed firearm. We reverse because, as the state has itself all but formally conceded, the officer’s pat down of W.R.A.’s person, which revealed the weapon, was supported neither by a founded suspicion that he was involved in criminal activity, State v. Levin, 452 So.2d 562 (Fla.1984), affirming, 449 So.2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Mullins v. State, 366 So.2d 1162 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 883, 100 S.Ct. 173, 62 L.Ed.2d 113; Hudnell v. State, 449 So.2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), nor by a reasonable belief that he was armed. See Redfin v. State, 453 So.2d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Baldwin v. State, 418 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The firearm in question should therefore have been suppressed.

Reversed.

SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON, J., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The respondent-appellant was adjudicated delinquent based on a finding that he [1321]*1321had carried a concealed firearm. We reverse because, as the state has itself all but formally conceded, the officer’s pat down of W.R.A.’s person, which revealed the weapon, was supported neither by a founded suspicion that he was involved in criminal activity, State v. Levin, 452 So.2d 562 (Fla.1984), affirming, 449 So.2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Mullins v. State, 366 So.2d 1162 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 883, 100 S.Ct. 173, 62 L.Ed.2d 113; Hudnell v. State, 449 So.2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), nor by a reasonable belief that he was armed. See Redfin v. State, 453 So.2d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Baldwin v. State, 418 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The firearm in question should therefore have been suppressed.

Reversed.

SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 So. 2d 1320, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2466, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wra-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack