THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDRE DOLE BELL, 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 State of Florida appeals a trial court order suppressing cocaine found during a search of the defendant's person. The court reverses, holding that police officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop and detain the defendant based on his conduct in a high-crime area at 4:30 a.m. and his flight from police, which justified a warrantless arrest and subsequent search.
The officers had sufficient articulable founded suspicion to stop and detain the defendant based on his suspicious conduct (peering into windows at 4:30 a.m.) in a high-crime area coupled with his flight from police. The discovery of an outstanding bench warrant authorized the arrest, and the search incident to arrest was lawful, making the cocaine admissible in evidence.
[1] A founded suspicion to stop and detain a defendant may be based on factors including the time, location, suspect's behavior, and the suspect's flight from police.
[2] Flight from police officers can be a factor in establishing articulable founded suspicion for a stop and detention.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Flight from police evidences guilt.”
Establishes that flight is a factor that contributes to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers observed the defendant peering into a first-floor apartment window from an alley in a known high-crime residential neighborhood at 4:3…
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 Flight As Evidence Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
The state appeals from an order suppressing tangible evidence. We find that the questioned evidence was improvidently suppressed and reverse.
The testimony before the trial court was uncontradicted and unrefuted. It showed that police officers of the City of Miami observed the defendant at 4:30 a. m. peering into the first floor window of an apartment from an alley. The residential neighborhood in which he was observed was known by the police officers as a high crime area. No other persons were present in the area. The police left their vehicle and approached the defendant. No verbal communication passed. The defendant turned and ran. The officers pursued and ultimately found him hiding behind some trash containers. Officers detained the defendant and asked him his name. He complied and, with the identification obtained, the officers learned by radio that there was an outstanding bench warrant for his arrest. The defendant was then taken to police headquarters where he was arrested. A search of his person produced cocaine. This is the tangible evidence ordered suppressed by the trial court.
The state contends the officers had articulable founded suspicion to stop and detain the defendant. Some of the factors enumerated by the court in State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) which may be evaluated by police officers to reasonably suggest a suspect’s possible commission, the existence, or imminence, of a crime are:
The time; the day of the week; the location; the physical appearance of the suspect; the behavior of the suspect; the appearance and manner of operation of any vehicle involved; anything incongruous or unusual in the situation as interpreted in the light of the officer’s knowledge.
354 So. 2d at 1247. To this list may be added, the factor of flight. Flight from police evidences guilt. Gibson v. State, 368 So. 2d 667 (Pla. 3d DCA 1979); Monnette v. United States, 299 F. 2d 847 (5th Cir. 1962). “Plight invites pursuit and colors conduct which hitherto has appeared innocent.” United States v. Pope, 561 F. 2d 663, 668 (6th Cir. 1977).
In this case, the conduct of the defendant at the time and place, an area known for its high crime rate, coupled with his flight, afforded the officers their articulable founded suspicion necessary to stop and detain him as contemplated under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The police officers were authorized during the stop and detention of the defendant to ascertain if there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. See Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972); Coney v. State, 341 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The disclosure of a bench warrant authorized the police to arrest the defendant. Wigfall v. State, 323 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Based on a valid arrest, a search of his person was lawful. § 901.21, Fla.Stat. (1979). Contraband seized from a search of his person at police headquarters is clearly admissible in evidence. Dolan v. State, 185 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
State v. PYE, 551 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…at 698. See e.g., A.E.R. v. State, 464 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA) (trespassing complaint, coupled with efforts to elude officers), review denied, 472 So. 2d 1180 (Fla.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1011, 106 S.Ct. 541, 88 L.Ed.2d 471 (1985); State v. Bell, 382 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (defendant in high-crime area seen peering from alley into window of apartment, coupled with flight); Isham v. State, 369 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (anonymous tip detailing defendant and an impending drug sale, coupled with f…
-
Cobb v. State, 511 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…s, may justify the belief that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity and, therefore, an investigatory stop. See, e.g., A.E.R. v. State, 464 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (trespassing complaint plus efforts to elude officers); State v. Bell, 382 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (observation of defendant peering from an alley into first floor window of an apartment plus flight); Isham v. State, 369 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (informant’s detailed tip concerning an impending drug sale by the defendant…
-
State v. Hoover, 520 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…stop, so long as other suspicious circumstances are present. Cobb v. State, 511 So. 2d 698, 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). See, e.g., A.E.R. v. State, 464 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (trespassing complaint plus efforts to elude officers); State v. Bell, 382 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (defendant seen peering from alley into first floor window of apartment plus flight); Isham v. State, 369 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (informant’s detailed tip regarding defendant’s impending drug sale plus flight); Gibson v. S…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1972)
- State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- United States v. Pope, 561 F.2d 663 (6th Cir. 1977)
- Maynard Paul Monnette and Robert Christianson Noreng v. United States, 299 F.2d 847 (5th Cir. 1962)
- Sautter v. Victory Auto Rental Corp., 323 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Gibson v. State, 368 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Coney v. State, 341 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Humphries, 185 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Dolan v. State, 185 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)