STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARET ELAINE HARWOOD AND STEWARD CARL STAMPER, APPELLEES
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 a trial court order suppressing evidence and assessing attorney's fees against the State Attorney for the assistant prosecutor's late arrival at a suppression hearing. The appellate court affirms the suppression order but reverses the fee assessment, holding that trial courts lack authority to assess defendant's attorney's fees against the State Attorney without following criminal contempt procedures.
The trial court properly suppressed the evidence because there were no articulable facts supporting the stop or search. However, the trial court lacked authority to assess attorney's fees against the State Attorney; if the court found contempt, it must follow Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 for direct criminal contempt, and any resulting sanction would not benefit the defendant.
[1] A warrantless stop and search of a lawfully parked automobile is unlawful absent articulable facts and rational inferences therefrom to support the stop.
[2] A trial court lacks authority to assess a defendant's attorney's fees against the State Attorney for tardiness at a hearing.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“there were no articulable facts and rational inferences therefrom which would support the stop of the defendants or the subsequent warrantless search of their lawfully parked automobile”
Establishes the legal standard under Terry v. Ohio for stops and searches, and the basis for affirming the suppression order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants were stopped by police and their parked automobile was searched. The trial court found that the stop and search lacked articulable facts an…
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 Articulable Facts cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
We affirm the order of the trial court suppressing the evidence in this case on the ground that the disputed testimony supports the trial court’s finding that there were no articulable facts and rational inferences therefrom which would support the stop of the defendants or the subsequent warrantless search of their lawfully parked automobile. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); § 901.-151(2), Fla.Stat. (1985). See also State v. Hunt, 391 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
The State also appeals from an order entered by the trial court assessing “legal costs incurred by the defendant” (later determined to be attorney’s fees in the amount of $225) against the Office of the State Attorney because the assistant state attorney arrived 17 minutes late for the hearing on defendants’ motion to suppress evidence.1 We know of no authority by which a trial court may assess a defendant’s attorney’s fees against the State Attorney, nor have we been cited to any such authority. If the court was of the opinion that the failure of the assistant state attorney to appear on time was an offense against the authority or dignity of the court, the procedure prescribed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 for direct criminal contempt should have been followed. See Porter v. Williams, 392 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Even then, any sanction imposed would not be for the benefit of the defendant. Because there was no attempt made to follow the procedure outlined in that rule, the order assessing attorney’s fees against the Office of the State Attorney must be reversed. The ease is remanded to the trial court for such further procedure as the trial court deems warranted, not inconsistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
COBB, C.J., and COWART, J., concur. . Defendants assert that there is no authority for an appeal by the State on this issue. We disagree. The order is appealable as an adjunct to the order granting the motion to suppress, which latter order is clearly appealable under section 924.071(1), Florida Statutes (1985), or alternatively, is appealable as a pre-trial order under section 924.07(8). The right of the State to appeal orders in criminal cases is governed by statute. State v. Creighton, 469 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1985). See also State v. Coney, 272 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Shelton, 584 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…this case with a few well-assessed costs against the party it felt caused the trial delay. However, the trial court has no inherent authority to assess attorney’s fees or costs against the State Attorney’s Office in criminal cases. State v. Harwood, 488 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); State v. J.L.P., 435 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Nor is there any applicable rule or statute which would permit the assessment of such fees or costs. See Harwood; J.L.P. It appears that only through the use of criminal cont…
-
State v. Grady Nelson, 27 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…ion for a discovery violation in a criminal prosecution. The trial court does not have inherent authority to assess costs against the State Attorney’s Office in criminal cases. State v. Shelton, 584 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); State v. Harwood, 488 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Accordingly, we grant certiorari, and quash the trial court order assessing costs against the State Attorney’s Office in this cause. Petition granted; order quashed.…
-
Moakley v. Smallwood, 730 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…he fact remains that it is the correctness of the trial court’s ruling that is under review, and based on the trial court’s findings, we perceive no error. The former wife also requests that this court certify direct conflict with State v. Harwood, 488 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), Israel v. Lee, 470 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), and Miller v. Colonial Baking Co., 402 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The former wife reads those cases to say that the trial court has no inherent power to award a monetary sa…
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)
- State v. Chapman Levi Creighton, 469 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Wilmon Coney, 272 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- State v. Hunt, 391 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Porter v. Volie A. Williams, Jr., 392 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)