Case Name: James Patrick GILLESPIE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-09-22
Citations: 404 So. 2d 152
Docket Number: No. 79-2233
Parties: James Patrick GILLESPIE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before HENDRY and FERGUSON, JJ., and VANN, HAROLD R. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 404
Pages: 152–153

Head Matter:
James Patrick GILLESPIE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 79-2233.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 22, 1981.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY and FERGUSON, JJ., and VANN, HAROLD R. (Ret.), Associate Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction of possession of Methaqualone. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying the motions to suppress evidence seized from an automobile belonging to appellant since such search was unlawful and the arrest of appellant and his subsequent statements were the direct products of the unlawful seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
Appellant strongly argued that Pomerantz v. State, 372 So.2d 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. den., app. dism., 386 So.2d 642 (Fla.1980), is controlling. We cannot agree. We reject the contention on the grounds that (1) the initial stop was proper under State v. Hetland, 366 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), aff'd, 387 So.2d 963 (Fla.1980); (2) the police officer directed appellant to pull over to an area where the appellant was intending to go; (3) the search was conducted by a private employer; unlike in Pomerantz the police officer here took no active participation in the search.
We have carefully considered all of appellant's contentions in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410 (Fla.1978); Bernovich v. State, 272 So.2d 505 (Fla.1973); Wigfall v. State, 323 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Affirmed.