Case Name: Donald Lee HOCHSTETLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-03-04
Citations: 400 So. 2d 974
Docket Number: No. 79-1381
Parties: Donald Lee HOCHSTETLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 400
Pages: 974–981

Head Matter:
Donald Lee HOCHSTETLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 79-1381.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
March 4, 1981.
Rehearing Denied July 22, 1981.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and James K. Green of Brown & Green, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals his conviction of possession of marijuana upon entry of a nolo contendere plea expressly reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. It is asserted that the warrant-less search of defendant's vehicle was not authorized under the Florida stop and frisk law. Section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1979). The initial investigatory stop and frisk by the police of the defendant is not contested in this appeal. At the hearing on motion to suppress the defense agreed that defendant had been legally detained and that there was no objection whatsoever to the initial detention. After this stop and frisk occurred, the police made a reasonable self-protective search in the front seat area of defendant's vehicle because the defendant made a sudden move toward this area. This search was of a limited nature and in response to the defendant's actions. A bag which police felt might contain a weapon was found on the floor of the front seat. Upon picking up the bag the odor of marijuana was noticed and the bag seized.
We conclude that the denial of the motion to suppress was in accordance with Brown v. State, 358 So.2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) and Stevens v. State, 354 So.2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The Brown decision authorizes limited protective searches as was the situation here. In Stevens the defendant was stopped while getting into his car in an apparent intoxicated condition. He made a move toward an object on the front seat which was wrapped in a towel. The police got to the object first and discovered an unsuspected gun. The court upheld the search as reasonably justified to protect the safety of the officer. We hold that the facts here, when construed in a light favorable to supporting the trial court's order, clearly gave the police sufficient grounds to act as they did. We, therefore, affirm the order denying the motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.