CHERYL MARTIN, 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.
Cheryl Martin appealed her convictions for drug and firearm possession following her no contest plea, challenging the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence. The appellate court agreed that the initial detention was improper under the Fourth Amendment, making the subsequent search and seizure of evidence illegal, and thus reversed and remanded with instructions for discharge.
The court held that Martin was improperly detained because the officer's observations—presence in a high crime area, association with known drug dealers, and movement toward and away from a vehicle—did not create founded suspicion of criminal activity justifying temporary detention. As a result, the seizure of cocaine and firearms was invalid and should have been suppressed.
[1] Presence in a high-crime area, walking away from police, and association with a known drug dealer, without more, do not establish a founded suspicion of criminal activity…
[2] Observed movement between a porch and a vehicle, without any exchange of items, does not create a founded suspicion of criminal activity justifying a temporary 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“presence in a high crime area, walking away from the police in a high crime area, and presence with a companion who is a known drug dealer, even when taken together, do not create a founded suspicion of criminal activity justifying a temporary detention”
Establishes the legal standard from Mosley v. State that the court applied to evaluate whether the officer had grounds to detain Martin
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin was observed by an arresting officer in an area known for street-level cocaine sales, sitting on a porch with two known drug dealers. She walke…
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 Temporary Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Appellant Martin challenges her judgment and sentences resulting from the entry of no contest pleas to possession of cocaine, carrying a concealed firearm, and possession of a firearm by a felon. Upon entering her pleas, appellant reserved the right to appeal the trial court’s order denying her motion to suppress. Appellant contends that she was improperly detained, thereby rendering her subsequent arrest, and the search and seizure of the evidence leading to her convictions illegal. She maintains that therefore, the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress. We agree. The arresting officer testified to the following observations: (1) appellant was in an area known for street level sales of cocaine; (2) appellant was sitting on a porch with two known drug dealers; (3) appellant walked toward a vehicle, and back to the porch then back to the vehicle; and (4) appellant got into the back seat of the vehicle, which started to leave when the officer approached.
This court has recently held that presence in a high crime area, walking away from the police in a high crime area, and presence with a companion who is a known drug dealer, even when taken together, do not create a founded suspicion of criminal activity justifying a temporary detention. Mosley v. State, 519 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
When comparing the bases which the officer had in the present case for stopping appellant to those of the officer in Mosley, the sole additional factor here is that appellant was observed walking to a vehicle, returning to the porch, returning to the vehicle, and entering the vehicle when she saw the officer approach. The officer never observed anything pass from appellant to the occupants of the vehicle or vice versa. He merely observed appellant speaking to the occupants. This additional factor alone does not alter the result which was reached in Mosley, that the detention was improper. As a consequence of the illegal detention here, the seizure of the cocaine and firearm found during the subsequent search of appellant, is likewise invalid. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). Both items of evidence should, therefore, have been suppressed. Id.
We reverse appellant's judgment and sentences and remand with instructions that appellant be discharged.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Hill v. State, 561 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…mporary detention. Mosley v. State, 519 So. 2d 58, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (no founded suspicion where appellant was walking with an alleged drug dealer in a high crime area and his fists clenched); G.J.P., 469 So. 2d at 826. See also Martin v. State, 521 So. 2d 260, 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (no founded suspicion where appellant was in drug area, sitting on a porch with two known drug dealers, then walked toward a vehicle, back to the porch, then back to the vehicle and got into the back seat and the vehicle star…
-
Shackelford v. State, 579 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…er approach. Winters v. State, 578 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Nor is a stop warranted where the defendant engages in such activity while in the presence of known drug dealers. See Hill v. State, 561 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Martin v. State, 521 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Mosely v. State, 519 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Thus, the fact that the appellant had merely been present at other drug transactions does not raise the basis for the officers’ suspicion to the level required for detention unde…
-
Ottney v. State, 571 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…belief of a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity justifying the temporary detention of the appellant. Recently, this 'court held that an officer did not have founded suspicion under circumstances similar to the instant case. Martin v. State, 521 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). In Martin, the officer testified that the defendant was in an area known for drug transactions, in the company of known drug dealers. The officer observed the defendant walk back and forth from a porch to a vehicle on the street,…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- Mosley v. State, 519 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)