Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

395 So. 2d 1202

Docket No. 80-1197.

State v. Brown

The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Clifford BROWN and Anthony Crumity, Appellees.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 10, 1981.

Rehearing Denied April 14, 1981.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1981-03-10

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“the furtive hand movements of both defendants under the car seat, during the subsequent police investigation after the stop, constituted articulable suspicion that the defendants were armed and dangerous, which, in turn, justified the police in searching under the car seat and seizing two guns thereunder— after the police had validly ordered both defendants out of the car....”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Dewberry v. State

Relies on Pennsylvania v. Mimms · State v. Stevens · 358 So. 2d 596 - Brown v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-03-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 2005

11 state decisions

70198119902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1203 Janet Reno, State Atty. and Stephen V. Rosin, Asst. State Atty., for appellant.

¶2Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Michael Zelman, Asst. Public Defender, for Anthony Crumity.

¶3Long & Smith and Harold Long, Jr., Miami, for Clifford Brown.

¶4Before HUBBART, C.J., and BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6The order under review suppressing the evidence in this cause is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings upon a holding that: (a) the defendants [Clifford Brown and Anthony Crumity] were lawfully stopped by the police and subjected to a valid temporary detention based on articulable suspicion of auto theft and driving with an expired license plate, State v. Stevens,354 So.2d 1244 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); (b) the furtive hand movements of both defendants under the car seat, during the subsequent police investigation after the stop, constituted articulable suspicion that the defendants were armed and dangerous, which, in turn, justified the police in searching under the car seat and seizing two guns thereunder — after the police had validly ordered both defendants out of the car, Pennsylvania v. Mimms,434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977); Brown v. State,358 So.2d 596 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Stevens v. State,354 So.2d 110 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); and (c) the lack of standing contention raised by the state is not here reached as, in any event, the instant search was a reasonable one even assuming the defendants had standing to challenge the search, see Gray v. State,177 So.2d 868 (Fla.3d DCA 1965), cert. denied,188 So.2d 815 (Fla. 1966).

¶7Reversed and remanded.

/395/so2d/1202 · .json · Public domain