STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD FRANK MARTINEZ A/K/A RICK HERNANDEZ, 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 the trial court's finding that police lacked probable cause to detain the defendant was legally improper under Terry v. Ohio and Florida law.
Police officers had a founded suspicion of criminal activity based on the defendant's conduct, but the trial court found this fell short of probable c…
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 Florida Stop And Frisk Law cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress. The trial court entered an order stating as follows:
1. THAT the police officers had a founded suspicion based upon the Defendant’s conduct that the Defendant had committed a violation of the laws of the State of Florida, but their suspicion fell short of that degree which would constitute probable cause. 2. THAT absent probable cause, the police officers could not detain the Defendant momentarily in order to determine identification or otherwise maintain the status quo while obtaining more information.
3. THAT the detention of the Defendant was illegal and therefore all evidence flowing from the illegal detention should be suppressed.
The second finding above is legally improper pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and the Florida Stop and Frisk Law. Section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1977).
We conclude that the order granting the motion to suppress must be reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings without prejudice to a rehearing on the motion to suppress. This decision does not constitute a ruling on the merits of the motion to suppress.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MOORE, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Retired, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raettig v. State, 406 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…es, 660 F. 2d 967 (4th Cir. 1981). Finally, reasons often given for authorizing investigatory stops have no applicability to Deputy Tucker’s further detention of appellant at the jail. He had already preserved the status quo, cf. State v. Martinez, 376 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), by securing appellant inside the jail. He had already taken a cursory view of appellant’s truck at the inspection station. His safety was not threatened at the jailhouse, and it cannot be seriously suggested that the search of t…
Authorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)