JESSIE SHAWN HAMILTON, 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.
Hamilton was convicted of cocaine possession after pleading nolo contendere while reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. The court reversed because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Hamilton under Florida's stop and frisk statute.
The detention was not permissible because the affidavit contained no facts suggesting Hamilton had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime, and no facts articulated any reasonable basis for the officer's stated fear that the bulge in his shorts might be a weapon.
[1] A law enforcement officer may temporarily detain a person if circumstances reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crimi…
[2] A law enforcement officer's fear that a bulge in a person's shorts might be a weapon must be supported by articulated facts.
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“As can be readily ascertained from the arrest affidavit, nothing in the officer's sworn statement suggests that Hamilton had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. Nor are there any facts articulated to support the officer's stated fear that the bulge observed in Hamilton's shorts might be a weapon.”
Establishes the core deficiency in the officer's basis for detention—absence of facts suggesting criminal activity or safety concerns
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 14, 1988, officers approached an area known for drug problems where approximately 10-12 people were standing. Officer Bergin observed Hamilton…
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
GOSHORN, Judge.
Jessie Shawn Hamilton appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine. Hamilton pled nolo contendere to this charge after reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. We reverse.
At the hearing on Hamilton’s motion the State elected to rely on the arrest affidavit in lieu of live testimony.1 The affidavit stated, in pertinent part:
ON 6/14/88 AT 2310 HRS, I, OFC B.J. BERGIN AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE T.P.F. UNIT APPROACHED THE AREA OF ELESE & DEERROCK WHERE APPROX. 10-12 SUBJECTS WERE STANDING. THIS AREA IS A KNOWN DRUG PROBLEM, NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS AND ARRESTS ARE MADE CONCERNING THE SALE, USE AND DELIVERY OF DRUGS.
I OFC. BERGIN OBSERVED A B/M WEARING A BRN. PLAID SHORT AND SHIRT SET STANDING IN MIDDLE OF THE STREET. AS THE B/M TURNED TOWARDS MYSELF I OBSERVED A BULGE IN THE B/M’S SHORTS. I PLACED THE B/M AT THE REAR OF MY VEH. IN ORDER TO SEARCH FOR WEAPONS AND DISPEL MY FEAR OF A WEAPON IN HIS SHORTS.
The question presented in this case is whether or not Hamilton’s initial detention was permissible under the Florida Stop and Frisk Law, section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1987) which provides in relevant part:
(2) Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county, he may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person temporarily detained and the circumstances surrounding his presence abroad which led the officer to believe that he had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense.
As can be readily ascertained from the arrest affidavit, nothing in the officer’s sworn statement suggests that Hamilton had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. Nor are there any facts articulated to support the officer’s stated fear that the bulge she observed in Hamilton’s shorts might be a weapon.
Each of the cases relied upon by the State in support of the denial of the motion to suppress is inapposite because in each cited case the officer articulated facts which would reasonably cause the officer to believe his or her safety was endangered. No such facts were presented in this case. Accordingly, the conviction is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant the motion to suppress.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DANIEL, C.J., and EATON, O.H., Jr., Associate Judge, concur. . The affidavit was objected to by Hamilton's trial attorney, but the use of the affidavit in lieu of live testimony was not presented to this court as an issue on appeal. Nevertheless, we express our concern about the state presenting evidence which effectively denies a defendant his right of cross-examination.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alexander v. State, 693 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…armed, is invalid under stop and frisk law. Id. at 366. See also Johnson v. State, 610 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Evans v. State, 546 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Hamilton v. State, 612 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). In Hamilton v. State, 552 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), members of a police unit approached a group of men standing in an area known for drug sales and use. When the defendant turned toward the officer, the officer observed a bulge in the defendant’s shorts. The officer feared there…
-
C.K. v. State, 705 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…manded. . The officer noticed the bulge only after the search began. Even if, however, it had been seen prior to the stop it would not have provided a "founded suspicion.” See Sholtz v. State, 649 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Hamilton v. State, 552 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). . We need not consider the appellant’s claims of other infirmities in the search, such as the argument that even if a Terry stop were justified, the pat down was not. See Smith v. State, 592 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).…
-
State v. Robinson (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2014)…hearing. His statement to Officer Wilson identifying Appellee as the at-fault driver was admissible and the trial court should have considered it. Officer Wilson’s independent 3 State v. Cino, 931 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Hamilton v. State, 552 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); State v. Sigerson, 282 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). 6 of 6 observations, Hyzen’s statement and Appellee’s obvious signs of impairment was competent substantial evidence supporting reasonable suspicion to detain Appellee, and…