STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES RAWLINGS, 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 appealed the trial court's suppression of a firearm recovered during a pat-down search of the defendant following a police response to a reported shooting. The appellate court reversed, holding that the initial police encounter was not a seizure requiring founded suspicion, and the subsequent frisk was justified by probable cause to believe the defendant was carrying a dangerous weapon.
The appellate court held that the police encounter did not constitute a seizure requiring founded suspicion because the defendant's cooperation was voluntary. The court further held that once Officer Arnold developed probable cause to believe the defendant was carrying a firearm, a frisk of the defendant's person was entirely justified to ensure officer safety.
[1] A mere contact between a citizen and a police officer that evokes voluntary cooperation is not a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
[2] Police may approach a citizen under somewhat suspicious circumstances to investigate a reported crime without conducting a seizure.
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“A mere contact between a citizen and a police officer which evokes voluntary cooperation on the part of a citizen is not a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”
Establishes the legal standard that voluntary police-citizen encounters do not require founded suspicion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 21, 1979, Isaac Isham heard gunshots outside his home and saw an unidentified person on the street. Isham called police to report the incid…
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 Fourth Amendment Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
MOORE, Judge.
This is an appeal by the State from the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. We find that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence and reverse.
The following evidence was adduced at the hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress. Isaac Isham was watching television on October 21, 1979 when he heard some shots outside of his home. Isham looked out on the street where he saw a person whom he was unable to identify. Isham then called the police and reported what he had heard and seen.
Officer Williams responded to the call and found the defendant and a woman on a street in the vicinity of Isham’s house. These were the only two people in the area. Officer Arnold also responded to the call and arrived at the scene sometime shortly after the arrival of Officer Williams. While Officer Williams engaged the defendant in a conversation Officer Arnold approached and noticed the outline of a gun in the back pocket of the defendant’s pants. Arnold informed Williams of this fact and Williams conducted a pat down of the defendant. Officer Williams recovered a .25 caliber automatic pistol.
Based on this testimony the trial court suppressed the recovered firearm because the police did not have a founded suspicion to justify a detention of the defendant. While we agree that there was insufficient evidence of an articulable basis of founded suspicion presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress, we find that the police activity in this case did not constitute a detention of the defendant. Thus, such a showing was not necessary to justify the encounter between the defendant and the police. A mere contact between a citizen and a police officer which evokes voluntary cooperation on the part of a citizen is not a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Elmore, 595 F. 2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Wylie, 569 F. 2d 62 (D.C.Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 944, 98 S.Ct. 1527 (1978). See also, United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980). Where, as in the instant case, the police approach a citizen under somewhat suspicious circumstances for the purpose of routinely investigating a reported crime, no “seizure” has occurred. “There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone in the streets.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 34, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1886, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 913 (1969) (White, J., concurring). If, during a lawful and extremely temporary encounter between a police officer and a citizen, probable cause is formulated to believe that the citizen is carrying a dangerous weapon, a frisk of that citizen’s person is entirely justified to insure the safety of the police officer. Carter v. State, 370 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); State v. Francois, 355 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978); Williams v. State, 294 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974).
In the instant case, there can be little doubt that Officer Arnold had probable cause to believe that the defendant had a firearm in his back pocket. Arnold was certainly familiar with the general shape of a handgun. Furthermore, the police were present at the scene to investigate a reported shooting which had occurred just prior to their investigatory contact with the defendant. The police “frisk” of the defendant was both justified and necessitated by the circumstances of this case.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress and remand the cause for further proceedings.
ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Lightbourne v. State, 438 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1983)…cement of our criminal laws. United States v. Mendenhall. Florida courts have recognized that, in this context, law enforcement officers can indeed initiate contacts with citizens without creating a stop and seizure situation. In State v. Rawlings, 391 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA), petition denied, 399 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1981), an individual heard some shots outside his home and, upon investigating saw someone outside, but could not identify him. He called the police who arrived on the scene to find the defendant…
-
Login v. State, 394 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…use to cooperate and go on his way.” This position, as well as the result we reach herein, finds further support in two recent decisions of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, State v. Grant, 392 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Rawlings, 391 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) as well as similar decisions from other jurisdictions. See e. g. Coates v. United States, 413 F. 2d 371 (D.C.Cir.1969); State v. Tsukiyama, 56 Hawaii 8, 525 P. 2d 1099 (1974); United States v. Burell, 286 A. 2d 845 (D.C.App.1972)…
-
Golphin v. State, 945 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2006)…bout to commit or had committed any crime," id. at 387, we held that the defendant consented to the identification check, which meant that "no showing of founded suspicion was required to justify the encounter." Id. at 388 (citing State v. Rawlings, 391 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)). We reasoned as follows: Officer McGowan's investigation of the suspicious vehicle in this case does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional stop or seizure. Officer McGowan simply approached the parked car, asked defendan…
Previewing 3 of 14 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)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980)
- United States v. Elmore, 595 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1979)
- Ternes v. North Dakota, 435 U.S. 944 (U.S. 1978)
- Black v. United States, 435 U.S. 944 (U.S. 1978)
- United States v. Wylie, 569 F.2d 62 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
- State v. Francois, 355 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Williams v. State, 294 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Carter v. State, 370 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)