ROBERT LEE WATTS, JR., 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District reversed defendant's convictions for possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia, holding that the officer's stop was unconstitutional because a vague suspect description matching only the color of defendant's shirt and his general race did not provide the required founded suspicion for the stop.
The stop was improper and violated the defendant's rights because a vague description matching only the color of the defendant's shirt and general race does not provide the founded suspicion required under Florida law to stop and detain a citizen. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress, and the convictions must be reversed.
[1] A law enforcement officer may only stop and detain a citizen if the officer possesses a "founded suspicion" of illegal activity, which requires some factual foundation in…
[2] A vague or general description of a suspect is insufficient to justify stopping every individual who might possibly match that description.
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] vague description simply will not justify a law enforcement officer in stopping every individual ... which might possibly meet that description”
Establishes the legal standard that vague suspect descriptions cannot form the basis for constitutional stops.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn officer stopped defendant approximately 30 minutes after a robbery occurred four or five blocks away. The robbery suspects were described as a blac…
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
LEHAN, Judge.
We reverse defendant’s convictions for possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. We conclude that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress and that the search and arrest of defendant grew out of an improper stop.
The arrest of defendant and seizure of the cocaine and drug paraphernalia resulted from a stop of defendant by an officer approximately thirty minutes after a report of a robbery which occurred four or five blocks away from where the officer observed defendant standing on a street corner holding a baby and talking to a woman. The description of the suspects which had been given to the officer were “a black male, approximately six feet tall, slim build, grayish-bluish type pullover shirt and blue jeans, possibly in his teens.” The other individual was described as being a “shorter, heavier black male with the same color shirt.” Although the officer’s testimony was to the effect that when he first observed defendant he thought defendant matched the physical description of the first of the foregoing suspects, he also testified that when he approached defendant he realized that defendant did not match the age and height description. Defendant was 37 years old and 5’6” tall. Defendant was wearing a gray shirt.
Following the stop the officer noticed a bulge at defendant’s ankle and, after raising defendant’s trouser leg, saw a paper bag in defendant’s sock. The officer touched the bag, ascertained that it contained syringes, opened the bag, and discovered syringes. A subsequent search produced cocaine from defendant’s pocket.
An officer can only stop and detain a citizen if he has a “founded suspicion” of illegal activity. § 901.151, Fla.Stat. (1983); State v. W.O.R., 382 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA), petition for review denied, 388 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1980); State v. Hunt, 391 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). A founded suspicion is a suspicion which has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer when interpreted in light of the officer’s knowledge. State v. Spurling, 385 So. 2d 672, 674 (Fla. 2d DCA), petition for review denied, 392 So. 2d 1379 (Fla.1980); State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
In finding that the stop in this case was improper we apply the proscription that “[a] vague description simply will not justify a law enforcement officer in stopping every individual ... which might possibly meet that description.” Sumlin v. State, 433 So. 2d 1303, 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also L.T.S. v. State, 391 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The record contains no evidence of any distinctive or unique characteristic of defendant’s shirt as matching that of one of the robbery suspects. We note that following defendant’s arrest, the victims of the robbery failed to identify him as one of the robbers and he was not charged with the robbery.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Augustyn, 490 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306. Here the source of the dispatch was merely an “anonymous citizen.” There is no contention that the tip was bolstered by any other reports or observations. Lewis v. State, 337 So. 2d at 1032. Watts v. State, 468 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), another case cited in the majority opinion, also does not appear to be dispositive because it simply involved a stop of a robbery suspect whose description did not match the description of the robber which had been given to the p…1 / 2
-
Danson Exantus-Barr v. State, 193 So. 3d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…ous conduct, and any other activity consistent with guilt. Id, “A founded suspicion is a suspicion which has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer when interpreted in light of the officeris knowledge.” Watts v. State, 468 So. 2d 256, 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). “Whether an officer’s suspicion is reasonable is determined by the totality of the circumstances which existed at the time of the stop and is based solely on facts known to the officer before the stop." Slydell v. State, 792…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Sumlin v. State, 433 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- State v. Spurling, 385 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- State v. Hunt, 391 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- L. T. S. v. State, 391 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- State v. W. O. R., 382 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)