CALVIN HARRIS, 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.
Calvin Harris pleaded nolo contendere to charges while reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court reversed, finding that evidence was obtained through an illegal detention unsupported by reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity.
The court held that the evidence must be suppressed because it was obtained pursuant to an unlawful detention. The legality of a seizure must be determined based on facts known to the officer prior to the seizure, not on incriminating evidence discovered afterward.
[1] A law enforcement officer may only subject a person to a limited seizure under the Fourth Amendment when the officer possesses a reasonable and articulable belief that th…
[2] A law enforcement officer's "hunch" or bare suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity is insufficient to justify a detainment or arrest.
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“A person may be subjected to a limited seizure under the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution when a law enforcement officer has a reasonable and ar-ticulable belief that the person may be engaged in criminal activity.”
Establishes the standard for lawful detainment under the Fourth Amendment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris was detained, frisked, handcuffed, and placed in a police car by law enforcement. The arresting officer could not articulate any facts establis…
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 Fourth Amendment Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellant, Calvin Harris, challenges the judgments and sentences entered after he pled nolo contendere to the charges contained in four informations and reserved his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We reverse.
The testimony presented at the hearing on the appellant’s motion to suppress, even when viewed in a light most favorable to the state, establishes that the evidence in question was obtained from the appellant as the result of an illegal detention. A person may be subjected to a limited seizure under the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution when a law enforcement officer has a reasonable and articulable belief that the person may be engaged in criminal activity. Jacobson v. State, 476 So. 2d 1282 (Fla.1985). It is fundamental, however, that a law enforcement officer’s bare suspicion or “hunch” that a person is involved in criminal activity will not justify a detainment or arrest of that person. See §§ 901.15, 901.151, Fla.Stat. (1987). See also, Carter v. State, 454 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The arresting officer in this case was not able to articulate any facts which established that he reasonably believed that the appellant was involved in any criminal activity before he was detained, frisked, handcuffed, and placed into a police car. Additionally, the officer admitted that he did not believe that probable cause to arrest existed up to that point.
Although certain incriminating evidence was obtained from the appellant after he had been taken into custody, the legality of the seizure must be determined on the basis of facts known to the officer prior to the seizure. See State v. Riehl, 504 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 513 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.1987); McCloud v. State, 491 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The trial court, therefore, erred in considering the events which transpired after the initial unlawful detainment in ruling on the appellant’s motion. See Ward v. State, 453 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Since the evidence described in the appellant’s motion to suppress was obtained pursuant to an unlawful detainment and arrest, the trial court erred in denying that motion. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). We, accordingly, reverse and remand with instructions to discharge the appellant on all of the charges referred to in the four informations filed against him.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibson v. State, 576 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…tate, 523 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 531 So. 2d 1355 (Fla.1988). Thus, the subsequent pat-down, deemed by the trial court to be constitutionally permissible, was undertaken pursuant to an unlawful detention and arrest. Harris v. State, 537 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). We reverse the trial court’s order denying Gibson’s motion to suppress and we affirm the order dismissing the charge of carrying a concealed weap…
Authorities Cited
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- LaMarcus Edward Carter v. State, 454 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Jacobson v. State, 476 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1985)
- McCLOUD v. State, 491 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- State v. Riehl, 504 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Ward v. State, 453 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)