Wulff v. State

Florida Circuit Courts

Wulff v. State

35 Fla. Supp. 2d 15

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedMay 11, 1989

DocketCase No. 88-71 AP

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Fla. Supp. 2d 15 (Wulff v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wulff v. State, 35 Fla. Supp. 2d 15 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

CLIFFORD B. SHEPARD, Circuit Judge.

Appellant has appealed the Trial Court’s denial of his Motion to Suppress. The court having reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by counsel for Appellant and Appellee, holds:

[16]*161. The parties request for oral argument is denied as being unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.

2. Officer Clark’s initial contact with Appellant was an investigatory encounter made in response to a call by a concerned citizen regarding a vehicle being driven recklessly through a residential area. Under such circumstances, the need for probable cause or a founded suspicion that the defendant has committed or is about to commit a crime is not necessary. Lightbourne v State, 438 So.2d 380, 387, 388 (Fla. 1988).

Accordingly, the denial of the defendant’s Motion to Suppress is AFFIRMED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of May, 1989.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

CLIFFORD B. SHEPARD, Circuit Judge.

Appellant has appealed the Trial Court’s denial of his Motion to Suppress. The court having reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by counsel for Appellant and Appellee, holds:

[16]*161. The parties request for oral argument is denied as being unnecessary to the resolution of this cause.

2. Officer Clark’s initial contact with Appellant was an investigatory encounter made in response to a call by a concerned citizen regarding a vehicle being driven recklessly through a residential area. Under such circumstances, the need for probable cause or a founded suspicion that the defendant has committed or is about to commit a crime is not necessary. Lightbourne v State, 438 So.2d 380, 387, 388 (Fla. 1988).

Accordingly, the denial of the defendant’s Motion to Suppress is AFFIRMED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of May, 1989.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Fla. Supp. 2d 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wulff-v-state-flacirct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack