MICHAEL DAVID LEWIS, 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.
Michael Lewis was convicted of burglary after police officers stopped him on a public street early in the morning while he carried brown paper bags. The Florida appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the initial stop was illegal under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Lewis based solely on his possession of paper bags.
The court held that the initial stop was illegal because the officers lacked reasonable grounds or 'founded suspicion' to believe Lewis had committed a violation, and therefore all evidence flowing from the illegal stop, including the confession, was inadmissible. The conviction was reversed and Lewis was ordered discharged.
[1] A law enforcement officer may temporarily detain a person if circumstances reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crimi…
[2] A person's mere possession of paper bags while walking down a public street in the early morning hours, without any other indicia of criminality or reported crime, does n…
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“Since the officers had neither an arrest nor search warrant, the only legal way they could have detained the appellant was if they had reasonable grounds to believe he had committed a violation.”
Establishes the legal standard for lawful detention absent a warrant under Florida law.
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 Lewis walking down a public street in early morning hours carrying a large brown grocery bag and a smaller brown paper bag. T…
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
DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction of burglary and the question on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress evidence. It is our con- elusion the evidence was seized from the appellant in an illegal fashion in violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States and article I, section 12, of the Constitution of the State of Florida. Therefore we reverse the order denying the suppression of the evidence and order appellant discharged.
Appellant was seen by patrolling police officers in the early morning hours as he was walking down a public street carrying a large brown grocery bag and a smaller brown paper bag. These uniformed officers pulled ahead of appellant, stopped their marked patrol car and waited outside the car for appellant to come closer. Another car pulled up, stopped, and appellant entered that car and sat down. The policemen told the driver to wait so they could talk to appellant and as they looked into the car they could see appellant’s large bag was full of assorted cigarettes. Appellant was advised of his Miranda rights, requested to go to the police station with the officers where he admitted he broke into a poolhall and stole the cigarettes and money from vending machines. The small bag contained many coins. Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to the burglary and specifically reserved his right to appeal the unlawful search.
Since the officers had neither an arrest nor search warrant, the only legal way they could have detained the appellant was if they had reasonable grounds to believe he had committed a violation. If they had such a reasonable belief, also defined as “founded suspicion,” then the Florida Stop and Frisk law, section 901.151(2), Florida Statutes (1979), gives the authority for the detainer.1 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Rheiner, 297 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Bennett v. State, 350 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
The facts of this case are rather similar to the facts in Ingram v. State, 364 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), where that appellant was seen in possession of a paper bag acting “suspiciously.” As in Ingram, there was no legally sufficient reason for the officers to detain this appellant nor his companion in the car just because appellant was carrying two paper bags down the street in the early morning hours. No burglary nor other crime had been reported and appellant displayed no indicia of criminality except the bags. See also Parker v. State, 363 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Because the initial stop was illegal all that flowed from it was essentially illegal and the fruits of the search, along with the confession, cannot be used in trial against the appellant. Whitley v. State, 349 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Wong Sun v. U. S., 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961).
The order denying the suppression of evidence is reversed and appellant is ordered discharged.
REVERSED.
COBB, J., concurs.
CROSS, J., dissents without opinion.
. Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county, he may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person temporarily detained and the circumstances surrounding his presence abroad which led the officer to believe that he had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LaMarcus Edward Carter v. State, 454 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…al stop was unlawful, the evidence seized as a result of the illegal detention should have been suppressed. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 So. 2d 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Caladonato v. State, 348 So. 2d 326 (Fla.1977); Lewis v. State, 382 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Whitley v. State, 349 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Accordingly, we reverse Carter’s conviction and remand with directions for his discharge. We have reviewed appellant’s remaining contentions and have found them to be without…
-
State v. Rizo, 463 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…police officer’s initial automobile stop of defendant). Because the stop was unlawful, evidence obtained from further police activity is also inadmissible. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Lewis v. State, 382 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Whitley. The custodial interrogation conducted at the police station without probable cause to arrest is also violative of fourth amendment guarantees. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983); Duna…
-
Harris v. State, 574 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…la.1979), cert. denied 444 U.S. 883, 100 S.Ct. 173, 62 L.Ed.2d 113 (1979), Kirk v. State, 493 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), Levin v. State, 449 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), approved in State v. Levin, 452 So. 2d 562 (Fla.1984), and Lewis v. State, 382 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), in arguing that the initial stop was constitutionally impermissible. However, we find that the present case is more like State v. Jenkins, 566 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), and that the circumstances which the officer observed…
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
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1961)
- Ingram v. State, 364 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Whitley v. State, 349 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Parker v. State, 363 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- State v. Rheiner, 297 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Porter v. State, 350 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)