ETHINGOR WILZO WARREN, 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.
Warren appeals his conviction for crack cocaine possession and probation revocation. The court reversed, finding that the police officer exceeded the permissible scope of a weapons frisk by searching Warren's shirt pockets and seizing drug evidence without legal justification.
Yes. The officer exceeded the permissible scope of a weapons search by searching Warren's shirt pockets for small objects that could not reasonably be weapons. The motion to suppress should have been granted, the possession conviction must be reversed, and the probation revocation must be vacated as it was based solely on the illegal seizure.
[1] A founded suspicion justifying a stop permits only a limited weapons search, not a search for contraband.
[2] A police officer exceeds the permissible scope of a weapons search when the items seized are small pieces of crack cocaine and not weapons.
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“Even assuming, without deciding, that the circumstances provided the Sanford police officer with a founded suspicion to stop Warren, this only gave the officer the right to conduct a limited weapons search.”
Establishes that even with reasonable suspicion to stop, police authority is limited to weapons searches only
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Sanford police officer stopped Warren and searched his shirt pockets, discovering two pieces of crack cocaine, one in each pocket. The officer never…
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 Scope Of Search cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
By this consolidated action, Warren appeals from his conviction for possession of a controlled substance and the revocation of his probation which was based on such possession. He asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We agree and reverse on the following briefly stated analysis.
Even assuming, without deciding, that the circumstances provided the Sanford police officer with a founded suspicion to stop Warren, this only gave the officer the right to conduct a limited weapons search. See Walker v. State, 514 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); White v. State, 458 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Instead, the record establishes that upon stopping Warren the officer searched his shirt pockets and discovered two loose pieces of crack cocaine, one in each pocket.1 The officer never asserted that he believed Warren was carrying a weapon, and it would have been unreasonable to believe that these small objects were weapons. The officer exceeded the permissible scope of a weapons search when he seized these items. See, e.g., Jordan v. State, 544 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).2 The motion to suppress should have been granted and accordingly Warren’s possession conviction must be reversed.
Likewise, the revocation of probation, which was predicated on the possession offense must be vacated since it was based solely on the illegal seizure. See State v. Cross, 487 So. 2d 1056 (Fla.1986) (illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in probation revocation proceeding).
Conviction and Revocation of Probation REVERSED,
SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur. . The prosecutor below referred to “these little pieces of crack.”
. The State’s effort to sustain the seizure based on a condition in Warren's probation that Warren was subject to search by any probation officer at any time is unavailing. This condition gives only a probation officer authority to search the probationer and is not a blanket grant of permission for warrantless searches and seizures to all law enforcement officers. See Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1979); Elkins v. State, 388 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Smith v. State, 383 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Wood v. State, 378 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradford v. State, 567 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…his subsequent pat-down search of appellant based only on appellant’s wearing a loose jacket. He also improperly reached into appellant’s jacket pocket when he felt a hard rectangular object which he did not think was a weapon. See Warren v. State, 547 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). A motion to suppress directed solely to the [*914] matchbox might therefore have been granted. However, because the physical evidence admitted against appellant consisted of the crack pipe with cocaine residue which was found a…
-
Thomas v. State, 644 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…uter clothing to determine if he is carrying a weapon or something that could be used as a weapon. The officer exceeded his authority by putting his hands into Thomas’ pocket when he knew Thomas was not carrying a weapon. See, e.g., Warren v. State, 547 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (held that, even assuming the officer had a reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant, that gave him only the right to conduct a limited weapons search, and he exceeded the permissible scope of the search when he seized two piec…
-
Ricks v. State, 549 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…la. 2d DCA 1988). This case is analogous to those invalidating a seizure where the officer upon stopping the defendant reached inside the defendant’s pocket to seize an item which the officer did not believe was a weapon. See, e.g., Warren v. State, 547 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Johnson v. State, 547 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Jordan v. State, 544 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The State’s reliance on Adams v. State, 523 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) is unavailing because there the officer had se…
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
- Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1979)
- Walker v. State, 514 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- State v. Cross, 487 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 1986)
- Jordan v. State, 544 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Elkins v. State, 388 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Wood v. State, 378 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Taylor v. State, 458 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- White v. State, 458 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Smith v. State, 383 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)