STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BRYON PAUL HUNDLEY, 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.
Florida appeals the suppression of evidence and statements obtained during a brief roadside stop of a defendant later charged with grand theft of a stereo turntable. The court reversed the suppression order, holding that the officer had founded suspicion to stop and question the defendant based on the combination of circumstances: a recent BOLO for burglaries in the area, the early morning hour in a burglary-prone neighborhood, and the defendant's possession of a large box.
The court held that founded suspicion existed to justify the stop. The combination of specific information regarding burglaries in the area, the particular time of day (5:00 a.m.), the defendant's presence in a dark residential neighborhood, the defendant's possession of a large box, and the officer's recognition of the defendant from a recent BOLO provided sufficient factual foundation for the stop.
[1] A founded suspicion, which can justify a police stop, requires some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer, interpreted in light of the officer's…
[2] Mere or bare suspicion, lacking objective justification, cannot support a detention.
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 "founded suspicion" is a suspicion which has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer, when those circumstances are interpreted in light of the officer's knowledge. "Mere" or "bare" suspicion, on the other hand, cannot support detention.”
Establishes the legal standard for founded suspicion that justifies a police stop, distinguishing it from mere or bare suspicion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt approximately 5:00 a.m. in a residential neighborhood experiencing recent burglaries, a police officer on routine patrol observed defendant walking…
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 Mere Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals the grant of a motion to suppress evidence and statements. We reverse. The facts are not disputed and the only evidence offered on the motion was the testimony of the police officer who stopped but did not arrest the defendant. Defendant was later charged with grand theft of a Quasar turntable. The issue was whether the police officer had a founded suspicion at the time he initially stopped and questioned defendant.
The police officer was on routine patrol at approximately 5:00 a.m. in a primarily residential neighborhood. It was still dark and the particular area had recently been experiencing an increasing number of burglaries during the night. The defendant was observed walking along the road carrying a large box, which was marked as a Quasar stereo turntable. The defendant approached the police officer’s car and the officer asked him his name and why he was out at that hour. Defendant replied that he was returning from work and that he had bought the stereo turntable during the day at a Radio Shack store. During this contact, the police officer had a chance to see the defendant’s face and thought he recognized him as an individual described in a recent BOLO on a person committing residential burglaries in the particular neighborhood between 12 midnight and 8:00 a.m. During the conversational exchange, defendant sat the stereo box on the hood of the police car and the police officer copied the serial number off the box. After this brief conversation, defendant continued on his way. He was subsequently charged with theft of the turntable, and on motion the circuit court suppressed the defendant’s statements, the box, and the contents on the theory that the initial stop was not authorized. We disagree and reverse.
A founded suspicion was discussed at length in State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), where the court stated at 1247 as follows:
A “founded suspicion” is a suspicion which has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer, when those circumstances are interpreted in light of the officer’s knowledge. “Mere” or “bare” suspicion, on the other hand, cannot support detention. Coleman v. State, 333 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Mere suspicion is no better than random selection, sheer guess-work, or hunch, and has no objective justification. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and Thomas v. State, 250 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)....
Merely driving around town in an out-of-state van, or walking along a street late at night, or looking or pointing at policemen, or pulling out of a parking lot when the police come into view, with nothing more, is insufficient to justify an individual’s detention. Coladanto v. State, 348 So. 2d 326 (Fla.1977); Lower v. State, 348 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Stanley v. State, 327 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Vollmer v. State, 337 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).
We think that the facts in this case are sufficient to satisfy the State v. Stevens test. There was specific information regarding burglaries in the area at the particular time when the defendant was found walking in the dark carrying a large box. In addition, we are impressed with minimal intrusion involved here. The police officer simply asked defendant his name and why he was so engaged. During this time the police officer observed and copied down a number off the box. No search was made and the delay was minimal. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence which was not seized until the defendant was later charged and arrested. The order granting suppression is thus reversed.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
BERANEK, HERSEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Levin v. State, 449 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…out on the street during late and unusual hours in an area where crimes have been committed in the past before the police may properly stop and detain an individual for possible criminal activity. The state relies on the cases of State v. Hundley, 423 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) and Boal v. State, 368 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We believe the Hundley case is distinguishable on the ground that the defendant was not only out on the street at late and unusual hours in an area where there had been home bu…
-
State v. Arnold, 475 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…la.2d DCA), petition for review denied, 388 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1980). However, a “bare” suspicion cannot support a detention. Mullins v. State, 366 So. 2d 1162 (Fla.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 883, 100 S.Ct. 173, 62 L.Ed.2d 113 (1979); State v. Hundley, 423 So. 2d 548 (Fla.4th DCA 1982); Stevens, 354 So. 2d at 1247. However, nothing in Terry prevents a police officer from addressing questions to an individual. Lightbourne v. State, 438 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1330, 79 [*307] L.Ed…
-
Tamer v. State, 463 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…lice officer who stopped and questioned a person walking along the road in the dark in an area which had been experiencing a rash of burglaries, where the person had been carrying a large box which was marked as a stereo turntable, State v. Hundley, 423 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and by officers who observed a truck late on a Sunday night in the vicinity of a city supply and equipment yard, where the truck was overloaded in a disorderly manner with materials of the kind which had been stolen from the sam…
Authorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Coladonato v. State, 348 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 1977)
- Thomas v. State, 250 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Lucinda Stratton v. McQUEEN, 337 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Coleman v. State, 333 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Stanley v. State, 327 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Foster v. State, 348 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Lower v. State, 348 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)