Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

649 So. 2d 326

Peterson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 26, 1995

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1995-01-26

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 1999

10 state decisions

Relies on Sowashee Venture v. EB, Inc. · 643 So. 2d 70 - Jimenez v. State · 645 So. 2d 156 - Howard v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-01-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WOLF, Judge.

¶1Appellant is appealing from a judgment and sentence imposed after he was convicted in a jury trial of possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana. Appellant alleges that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We reverse the denial of the motion.

¶2The search of defendant’s pockets exceeded the scope of either a pat-down for protection or the consent the officer had received to search the truck.1See State v. Smith, 632 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 290, 130

¶3L.Ed.2d 205 (1994); Papalas v. State, 645 So.2d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Howard v. State, 645 So.2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). All the evidence was seized as a result of the illegal search and constitutes fruit of the poisonous tree. Rouse v. State, 643 So.2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

¶4Because this issue is dispositive of this case, we reverse appellant’s conviction and remand with instructions that appellant be discharged.

ERVIN and MINER, JJ., concur.

¶5. Additionally, any consent given by the defendant to search the vehicle was clearly withdrawn when he grabbed items from the police officer and drove away. See Jiminez v. State, 643 So.2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

/649/so2d/326 · .json · Public domain