ROY E. MOOREHEAD, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Roy Moorehead appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance after pleading nolo contendere, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The appellate court reversed, finding the initial police stop was illegal and therefore the search of Moorehead's pool cue and subsequent seizure of phenobarbital were unlawful.
The court reversed the trial court's denial of the suppression motion, holding that the initial stop of Moorehead was illegal, the subsequent search and seizure of the pool cue was therefore illegal, and appellant's mere handing of the cue to the officer did not constitute consent to a search. Even if consent had been given, it would not have been voluntary following the illegal stop.
[1] Evidence obtained as a result of an illegal stop and seizure is tainted and inadmissible.
[2] Consent to search following an illegal police stop does not dissipate the taint of the illegality unless it represents a clear break in the chain of events.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Such conduct by the police as occurred here may not be condoned, and any evidence discovered as a result thereof is tainted and may neither serve as the basis for a criminal charge nor be admissible at trial.”
Establishes the court's core holding that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible and cannot form the basis of criminal charges.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 28, 1978, around 6:30 p.m., Officer stopped Moorehead as he walked toward a recreation center in Reddington Beach carrying his personal po…
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 Illegal Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge..
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance and reserved the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We reverse.
Around 6:30 p. m. on November 28, 1978, appellant was walking towards a recreation center in Reddington Beach. Appellant was carrying his personal pool cue with him to play pool at the center which was to open in about thirty minutes. The center was located above a city fire station.
When stopped by a police officer and asked for identification, appellant complied by producing his driver’s license and blood donor card. Appellant also complied with the officer’s request that he accompany the officer to the police station to fill out a field interrogation card. At the station, the officer began admiring appellant’s pool cue and asked if he might examine it. Appellant consented and handed it to the officer who began shaking it. He heard something rattling around inside the cue and thought a weapon of some sort might be concealed therein. The officer unscrewed the cue, and observed a piece of paper with something secreted inside. The contents were subsequently determined to be phenobarbital, and appellant was arrested and-charged with its possession.
Appellant pleaded not guilty and moved to suppress the phenobarbital. At the suppression hearing, the officer testified that while there had been a purse snatching incident in a neighboring community the day prior to appellant’s arrest, he had no suspicion that appellant had committed that or any other crime at the time he stopped him. Indeed, he admitted that it was not at all unusual to see young people in the vicinity of the recreational hall at that time of evening. Nonetheless, the trial judge declined to suppress the evidence on the theory that appellant had consented to the search.
Such conduct by the police as occurred here may not be condoned, and any evidence discovered as a result thereof is tainted and may neither serve as the basis for a criminal charge nor be admissible at trial. Foss v. State, 355 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Taylor v. State, 355 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975).
We reject any contention that appellant consented to the search and that this represented a clear break in the chain of illegality sufficient to dissipate the taint. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). The officer did not ask for and appellant did not give his consent to a search of the pool cue. Rather, appellant handed the cue to the officer at his request, for him to admire. But even if the officer had requested and appellant had consented to a search, we do not find this to be one of those rare instances where consent following illegal police activity is voluntary. “[Ojrdinarily consent given after an illegal arrest will not lose its unconstitutional taint.” Bailey v. State, 319 So. 2d 22, 28 (Fla.1975). See also Urquhart v. State, 211 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). Since the stop was illegal, the subsequent search and seizure was also illegal. Therefore, we REVERSE the order of the trial court denying appellant’s motion to suppress and REMAND the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHEB, Acting C. J., and OTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Wells, 539 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1989)…asal inhaler containing contraband), review denied, 408 So. 2d 1095 (Fla.1981); Luxenburg v. State, 384 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (opening vehicle to agricultural inspector did not authorize him to slit open bag with knife); Moorehead v. State, 378 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (consent for officer to look at pool cue did not authorize unscrewing of cue to see what was rattling inside); Villari v. State, 372 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (no consent when defendant allowed access to vehicle but asked “Do…
-
State v. Thompson, 444 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Major v. State, 389 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 408 So. 2d 1096 (Fla.1981); State v. Carney, 423 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Luxenburg v. State, 384 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Moorehead v. State, 378 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Rose v. State, 369 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).…
-
Edwards v. State, 532 So. 2d 1311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ch. Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968);11 Robinson v. State, 388 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980);12 Ingram v. State, 364 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).13 The search was therefore illegal. Moorehead v. State, 378 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980);14 Pirri v. State, 428 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. den., State v. Pirri, 438 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1983).15 Furthermore, the trial court erred as a matter of law by using an incorrect standard for viewing the evidence at the suppre…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1975)
- Bailey v. State, 319 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)
- Taylor v. State, 355 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Urquhart v. State, 211 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Foss v. State, 355 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)