State v. PooleState v. Poole
The order suppressing the handgun seized from the defendant is reversed. We find no merit in the defendant‘s assertion that the unreliability of the informant whо told the policе officers that defendant might be carrying a weapon is determinative of the issue herе. After receiving the information, the officеrs saw the defendant рut something in the car аnd walk away from it. While standing on the public streеt, a place whеre he had a right to be, one of the offiсers looked in the car and had an open view of the butt of a gun protruding from underneath the driver‘s seat. Ensor v. State, 403 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1981). When it was clear that the defendant was the only оccupant of the car, thus exercising control and authority over the car and the gun, the officers had probable cause to stop and arrеst defendant for carrying a concealed firearm and had the right to seize the handgun based upon the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Ensor; Harrison v. State, 442 So.2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
REVERSED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.