State v. Lopez

5 Citing cases

  1. Finney v. State

    420 So. 2d 639 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 39 times
    Finding officers justified in detaining defendant for approximately 90 minutes

    It is permissible for officers to detain a suspect for a reasonable time while making an investigation prior to arrest. State v. Lopez, 369 So.2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); State v. Stevens, 354 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In State v. Merklein, 388 So.2d 218, 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), the court stated that: "[t]he reasonableness of an investigatory detention depends on the circumstances surrounding the detention, and not solely on its length.

  2. State v. Merklein

    388 So. 2d 218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that it was reasonable to detain the defendants for twenty to forty minutes pending the arrival of another officer, the robbery victim, and witnesses where the defendants and their automobile fit the radio description of two attempted armed robbery suspects

    Given the right to stop the vehicle and Merklein's and Nelson's apparent disagreement about the presence of weapons in their car, the officers properly detained them. It is permissible to detain suspects for a reasonable time to investigate the circumstances warranting an investigatory stop as well as any suspicious circumstances produced by the stop. See State v. Lopez, 369 So.2d 623 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); State v. Stevens, 354 So.2d 1244 (Fla.4th DCA 1978). The reasonableness of an investigatory detention depends on the circumstances surrounding the detention, and not solely on its length.

  3. Harrison v. State

    549 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

    Because of the police officer's experience and the totality of the circumstances, we agree with the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress finding there was well-founded suspicion of criminal activity to justify stopping the defendant's vehicle. State v. Lawson, 446 So.2d 202 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 453 So.2d 44 (Fla. 1984); Mock v. State, 385 So.2d 665, 667 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 392 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 1980); State v. Lopez, 369 So.2d 623, 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So.2d 1198 (Fla. 1980); State v. Stevens, 354 So.2d 1244, 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); § 901.151(2), Fla. Stat. (1987). Affirmed.

  4. Chapas v. State

    404 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 19 times
    Upholding Belton search after defendant was ordered out of the car, arrested for driving while intoxicated, and placed in a police vehicle

    Ulesky v. State, 379 So.2d 121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979) (dictum). But see State v. Francoeur, 387 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and State v. Lopez, 369 So.2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Here, the driver and sole occupant of the automobile had been placed under arrest and was in a police vehicle at the time of the search.

  5. State v. Francoeur

    387 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 5 times

    We are aware of none. In State v. Lopez, 369 So.2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), the court applied the "automobile exception" rule to authorize a warrantless search of a locked, cargo portion of a large rental truck. In Miranda v. State, 354 So.2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), the court held that the "automobile exception" rule could be applied to the search of a commercial fishing boat.