JIMMIE LEE CRUMMIE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an investigatory stop is lawful if based on a traffic violation, even if the initial suspicion was based on other factors.
[1] A traffic violation, such as running a red light, provides lawful grounds for an investigatory stop, even if the officer also harbored other suspicions.
[2] Evidence discovered during a lawful investigatory stop is admissible, regardless of the officer's initial subjective intentions.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn officer stopped defendant and companions on mopeds due to a pattern of robberies. During the stop, the officer observed a traffic violation (runnin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Traffic Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Jimmie Lee Crummie, appeals his conviction for possession of heroin and cocaine based upon a plea of nolo conten-dere tendered after the trial court denied his motion to suppress on the ground of unlawful detention. The pertinent facts are as follows:
Officer Estrada of the Miami Police Department was on routine patrol when at approximately 1:30 A.M. he observed the defendant, Jimmie Crummie, with, two ,other black males on mopeds traveling northbound on S.W. 17th Avenue. Since numerous robberies and burglaries had been committed in the neighborhood by three black males described as riding mopeds, Officer Estrada continued to observe Crummie apd his companions during which time he saw them run a red light. Thereupon, he followed and stopped them. Officer Estrada proceeded to run a routine check on Crum-mie and his companions and then, observed a shiny object on Crummie’s left leg. Concerned for his safety, Officer Estrada began to pat down Crummie, and the contraband (cocaine and heroin) was discovered on his person.
The trial judge denied the motion to suppress because Officer Estrada testified at the suppression hearing that he stopped Crummie and his companions because of the reports of recent robberies and burglaries committed by three young black .males on mopeds.
As at the suppression hearing, defendant. Crummie argues that the above ground was' insufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activi-: ty and to permit an investigatory stop. •
We need not determine this issue of the existence of a reasonable suspicion because Officer Estrada observed Crummie and his-companions run a red light and, therefore, . pursuant to Section 901.15(5), Florida Statutes (1977) he lawfully stopped them. See also Sections 316.001 et seq. Florida Statutes (1977). Any other intentions of Officer Estrada toward Crummie and his companions would not invalidate the lawful investigatory stop as a result of the traffic violation.
Affirmed.