STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CARROLL JULIAN BAXTER AND TIMOTHY BRIAN HAMILTON, APPELLEES
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 State appeals a trial court's suppression of evidence based on an illegal traffic stop. The appellate court reverses, holding that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard—probable cause rather than the proper "well-founded suspicion" test for investigatory stops of motor vehicles.
The trial court erred by applying a probable cause standard to evaluate the legality of the traffic stop. The correct legal standard requires only that there be circumstances giving rise to a "well-founded suspicion" of criminal activity, not probable cause, to justify an officer's stop of a motor vehicle for investigation.
[1] A law enforcement officer may legally stop a motor vehicle for investigation if circumstances give rise to a "well-founded suspicion" of criminal activity.
[2] The standard for determining the legality of a vehicle stop for investigation is whether there was a "well-founded suspicion" of criminal activity, not whether the office…
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 intelligence“In determining whether a law enforcement officer may legally stop a motor vehicle for investigation in a particular situation, the question is not whether the officer had probable cause but whether there were circumstances which would give rise to a "well-founded suspicion" of criminal activity.”
Establishes the correct legal standard for evaluating traffic stops for investigative purposes
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputy Merle Bullard spotted defendants Baxter and Hamilton driving a truck through rural Polk County in the early morning hours of March 2, 1979, und…
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 Well-Founded Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Chief Judge.
By this appeal, the state challenges the standard used by the trial court in granting the defendants’ motions to suppress.
The state filed an information charging defendants Baxter and Hamilton with burglary and grand theft. Thereafter both defendants filed motions to suppress evidence, and defendant Hamilton also filed a motion to suppress a confession. At the hearing on these motions, Polk County Sheriff’s Deputy Merle Bullard testified that while on patrol he had spotted the two defendants driving a truck through rural Polk County in the early hours of March 2, 1979, under what he considered to be suspicious circumstances. He stopped them, and after further investigation which produced Hamilton’s confession, he arrested them. Following Bullard’s testimony, the court heard argument and granted the motions, solely on the ground that the stop of the defendants had been illegal.
It is evident from statements which the judge made at the hearing that he believed that the issue before him was whether Deputy Bullard had probable cause to make the stop. The state contends that in applying a probable cause standard the court erred. We agree. In determining whether a law enforcement officer may legally stop a motor vehicle for investigation in a particular situation, the question is not whether the officer had probable cause but whether there were circumstances which would give rise to a “well-founded suspicion” of criminal activity. State v. Bastardo, 347 So. 2d 463 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); State v. Payton, 344 So. 2d 648 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Accordingly, as we did in Payton and Bastardo, we reverse the order of the trial court and remand the case for reconsideration of the evidence under the appropriate legal standard.
HOBSON and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Klepfer, 392 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…law enforcement officers had “a well-founded suspicion” that the occupant of the vehicle might be involved in criminal activity. Taylor v. State, 384 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Mock v. State, 385 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State v. Baxter, 378 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). An anonymous tip can provide the “well-founded suspicion” to justify an investigatory stop if the information carries sufficient indicia of reliability. State v. Hetland, 366 So. 2d 831, 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).1 In that case, th…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Payton, 344 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- State v. Bastardo, 347 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)