L.S. v. State, 547 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
L.S. v. State, 547 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ward v. State (alaskactapp, 2005-09-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
cited Cited "see" Ward v. State
Alaska Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fonseca v. State, 547 So.2d 1032, 1033 (Fla.App.1989). 9 .
discussed Cited "see" Love v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant's act may be "subsequent to the taking of the property... if it and the act of taking constitute a continuous series of acts or events." § 812.13(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (1987); see Fonseca v. State, 547 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
L.S., a juvenile
v.
The STATE of Florida
No. 88-844.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug 22, 1989.
547 So. 2d 1032
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Thomas G. Murray, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant., Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Joni B. Braunstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Ferguson, Gersten, Hubbart.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the respondent L.S. from a juvenile delinquency adjudication for unlawful possession of cannabis which was entered below based on a nolo contendere plea in which the respondent reserved for appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm based on a holding that (a) the arresting police officer had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when he ordered the respondent and his companion out of their car — namely, that the car with its two occupants was parked at 9:45 P.M. in a Texaco gas station which was closed for business at the time, thereby presenting a prima facie trespass of private property in a commercial area which was also generally closed for business, State v. Kibbee, 513 So.2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); (b) the police officer thereafter conducted a reasonable search of the passenger compartment of the car based on the officer’s plain view observation of two mini-manila envelopes which the officer recognized, based on his law enforcement experience, as common containers for cannabis; P.L.R. v. State, 455 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1220, 105 S.Ct. 1206, 84 L.Ed.2d 349 (1985); Lachs v. State, 366 So.2d 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); see Palmer v. State, 467 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); and (c) the trial court therefore properly denied the respondent’s motion to suppress the subject cannabis which was seized from the mini-manila envelopes during the aforesaid search. We have not overlooked the state’s confession of error in this case, but are neither persuaded nor bound thereby.

Affirmed.