STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS C. HUNT, JR., 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 statements and evidence from Hunt's arrest for grand theft of a motor vehicle. The appellate court reversed, holding that Officer Northcutt had founded suspicion to stop Hunt based on the location, color, and size of the vehicle matching a prior breaking-and-entering report.
Officer Northcutt was justified in stopping Hunt for questioning. Based on the color, size, and location of the automobile, the officer had founded suspicion—a reasonable suspicion requiring further investigation—that the vehicle was the same one involved in the prior breaking and entering and that an unauthorized person was in the vehicle at an unusual hour.
[1] A police officer may initiate a stop of a person based upon a founded suspicion, which is less than probable cause but more than a mere suspicion.
[2] A founded suspicion for a police stop requires further investigation and must have some factual foundation in the surrounding circumstances observed by the officer, inter…
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“Pursuant to section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1979), and Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), a police officer may initiate a stop of a person based upon a founded suspicion. A founded suspicion is something less than probable cause, but something more than a mere suspicion.”
Establishes the legal standard for permissible police stops 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 intelligenceOfficer Northcutt was patrolling an apartment complex parking lot at approximately 5:11 A.M. when he observed Hunt inside a white-over-red Mercury aut…
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 Founded Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Hunt was charged by an information with grand theft in the second degree of a motor vehicle in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1979). He moved to suppress his statements and any physical evidence on the ground that the initial stop that led to his arrest was illegal. The trial court granted that motion to suppress, and it is that order that the state is seeking to have reviewed on this appeal. The issue raised is whether the arresting police officer was justified in initiating a stop and identification check of Hunt.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the only witness was Officer Northcutt, who was the arresting officer. Officer Northcutt testified that as he was cruising through the parking lot of an apartment complex at approximately 5:11 A.M., he saw Hunt inside a white-over-red Mercury automobile with the door open. About a month before, the officer had taken a breaking and entering report of a white-over — red automobile at the same complex in about the same parking space. The officer thought that this white-over-red automobile might be the same as the automobile involved in the prior breaking and entering, and the officer did not recognize Hunt as the owner of that vehicle. When Hunt saw the officer in his cruiser, Hunt got out of the car and started walking away. It was at this time that the officer stopped Hunt for questioning which led to the arrest.
Pursuant to section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1979), and Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), a police officer may initiate a stop of a person based upon a founded suspicion. A founded suspicion is something less than probable cause, but something more than a mere suspicion. It is a reasonable suspicion that requires further investigation. Lewis v. State, 337 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); State v. Othen, 300 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). It is a suspicion which has some factual foundation in the surrounding circumstances observed by the officer, when those situations are interpreted in light of the officer’s knowledge. State v. Spurling, 385 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
In this ease, due to the color, size, and location of the automobile, Officer Northcutt reasonably believed that the car was the same one that had been burglarized about one month previously, and he reasonably suspected that somebody other than the owner of the car was in it at 5:11 A.M. The police officer was justified in stopping Hunt and making an investigation check.
The trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress is reversed, and this ease is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
State v. Paul, 638 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…his experience as an undercover law enforcement officer that a drug deal was in progress. His testimony, unrefuted by Paul, was a sufficient basis for Stoudt to stop Paul’s car. See State v. Brown, 616 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1993); State v. Hunt, 391 So. 2d 760, 761 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Based upon the totality of the circumstances presented by an experienced law enforcement officer, the state has shown a founded suspicion for the stop. Batie v. State, 593 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Murphy v. State, 5…
-
State v. Earnest Smith and Daniel Oliver, 477 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…ordered to halt several times. The officer himself testified that the defendants were not free to leave. This brief seizure or stop for investigatory purposes, however, need only be supported by a founded or reasonable suspicion. In State v. Hunt, 391 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), this court described a founded suspicion as something less than probable cause but something more than a mere suspicion. It is a reasonable suspicion that requires further investigation. Here, the officer had knowledge of burgla…
-
M.C. v. State, 450 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), relates to the constitutional right to refuse to provide information and is distinguishable. AFFIRMED. DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur. . As to reasonable suspicion justifying detention and inquiry, see State v. Hunt, 391 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); as to probable cause, see State v. Jones, 417 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).…
Previewing 3 of 12 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)
- State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Lewis v. State, 337 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- State v. Othen, 300 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- State v. Spurling, 385 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)