Case Name: L.S., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-08-22
Citations: 547 So. 2d 1032
Docket Number: No. 88-844
Parties: L.S., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and GERSTEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 547
Pages: 1032–1032

Head Matter:
L.S., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 88-844.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 22, 1989.
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.
Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and GERSTEN, JJ.

Opinion:
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.