DANNY MICHAEL TAYLOR, 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.
Danny Taylor appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search incident to arrest. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that police lacked lawful grounds to stop and detain Taylor based solely on his running from officers in a high-crime area, and therefore his subsequent arrest and the cocaine discovered was unlawful.
The court held that running from police in a high-crime area cannot alone justify a Terry stop, and that if circumstances do not justify detention of a single individual, they do not justify detention of multiple individuals to investigate unobserved criminal activity. Because the detention and arrest were unlawful, Taylor could not be guilty of resisting arrest without violence.
[1] A person's flight from police in a high-crime area, without more, does not alone justify a Terry stop.
[2] Police cannot detain a crowd of individuals to investigate potential criminal activity when the circumstances do not justify the detention of a single individual.
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“running from the police even in a high crime area cannot alone justify a Terry Stop”
Establishes the core legal principle that flight alone is insufficient to justify an investigative stop
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFour plainclothes Orlando police officers in an unmarked car observed what they believed to be a drug transaction on Orange Center Boulevard, a known …
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 Resisting Arrest Without Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, Judge.
Danny Taylor appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Testimony at the hearing disclosed that four Orlando police officers, dressed in plain clothes and cruising in an unmarked car, went to Orange Center Boulevard. This was an area described as known for its street level drug transactions. While in the car, one officer observed a drug transaction. He testified there were about 20 people at the site. As the officers approached in an attempt to investigate and identify individuals, they were recognized and the crowd dispersed.
The officers left the area but returned approximately one hour later. At that time a group of 15-20 people were gathered at each corner of the building. The officers observed no illegal activity, however as they exited their vehicle, one officer saw an individual break from the crowd and begin to run.
The individual, later identified as the defendant Taylor, was pursued for about three blocks before being subdued. The officer testified that the fact that Taylor ran made him “quite suspicious”. Taylor was arrested and a search incident to that arrest resulted in the discovery of a baggy containing a white residue, which later proved to be cocaine.
Taylor was chárged with possession of cocaine and resisting an officer without violence. After the denial of his motion to suppress, Taylor entered pleas of nolo con-tendere to both counts, reserving his right to appeal.
This court has held that running from the police even in a high crime area cannot alone justify a Terry1 Stop. Bastien v. State, 522 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). However, the State urges that the police had the right to detain the crowd to investigate and determine if any individual in that crowd was involved in criminal activity. We reject this contention outright. Clearly, if the circumstances do not justify the detention of a single individual, those same circumstances do not justify detention of numerous individuals in an effort to determine who, if anyone, might be involved in any unobserved criminal activity.2
The detention and subsequent arrest not being lawful, it follows that Taylor could not be guilty of resisting arrest without violence.
REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions to discharge the defendant.
COWART and DANIEL, JJ., concur. . Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
. There was no evidence that the criminal activity observed one hour before was continuing, or even that the individuals present at that time were present in the crowd at the time of Taylor’s arrest.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Curry v. State, 570 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…king area, and his attempt to walk away after seeing the police patrol’s arrival, are not sufficient circumstances, by themselves, to constitute a founded suspicion Curry had been, or was, or intended to engage in criminal activity. Taylor v. State, 540 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Gipson v. State, 537 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Bastien v. State, 522 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Had there been other additional circumstances, Harting could have been justified in making an investigatory stop, and t…
-
Lovell Smith v. State, 682 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…does not rise to that quantum of suspicion necessary to justify a stop. Such events can occur regularly in innocent circumstances and do not justify a stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Taylor v. State, 540 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (running from police even in a high crime area cannot alone justify a Terry stop). We reverse the order denying the motion to suppress. REVERSED. DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Great Plains Ins. Co. v. Midgley, 522 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)