Legal Opinion
G.M. v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided April 23, 2008No. Nos. 3D06-3032, 3D06-3033PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROTHENBERG, Judge.
G.M. appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized in this case. Because there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s factual findings, and the trial court correctly applied the law, we affirm.
The evidence presented at the hearing on G.M.’s motion to suppress is that Offi*530cers Smith and Cuenca observed G.M. and a group of between six and eight individuals loitering in the park. G.M. alternated between sitting in a black Lexus parked next to another vehicle and standing outside the car talking to the others. The other…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Florida v. RoyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. MendenhallSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Florida v. BostickSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- United States v. DraytonSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- G.M. v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2009
- GM v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 2009
- GM v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2008
- Timothy Trahan v. Douglas DevilleLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2006