C.D.M., A CHILD, 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.
A juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for cocaine possession, but the appellate court reversed because the initial traffic stop lacked the requisite founded suspicion required under Florida law. The court held that the officer's observation of the child running was insufficient justification for the stop.
The court held that Officer Nelson did not have the requisite founded suspicion to justify stopping and detaining the appellant. The observation that the appellant was running from officers was insufficient to provide founded suspicion under Florida law. Accordingly, the cocaine should have been suppressed.
[1] A stop and detention of an individual is not justified solely by the fact that the individual is running from the area indicated by a radio message from other officers.
[2] A trial court must determine a motion to suppress based solely upon the testimony and evidence properly presented before it.
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“Although a transcript of Nelson's deposition is a part of the record on appeal in this case, such deposition testimony was not introduced into evidence or otherwise received by the court as part of the evidence upon which the subject motion was determined or the appellant's guilt decided. The issue before us must be decided based solely upon the testimony and evidence properly presented before the trial court.”
Establishes the proper standard for appellate review of suppression motions—only evidence actually presented to the trial court should be considered.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice Officer Nelson received a radio message that a black male was running from other officers in the area. Nelson observed the appellant running fr…
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 Stop And Frisk cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
The appellant was adjudicated a delinquent child on the basis of his having been found guilty of possession of cocaine. On appeal, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the subject cocaine which was seized from his person. We agree and reverse.
The testimony of police officer Nelson, upon which the motion to suppress was decided, is straightforward and basically undisputed. Officer Nelson was alone in a marked police car conducting a drug investigation. He received a radio message from other officers in the area that a black male was running from them. Nelson saw the appellant running from the area indicated by the radio message. Nelson drove his car in front of appellant. Nelson exited the car and directed the appellant to come over to him which the appellant did. Nelson noticed a plastic bag protruding from the appellant’s pocket. While patting him down for weapons, Nelson felt some small items in the same pocket. Nelson asked the appellant what was in the pocket and the appellant answered that it was “crack.” Nelson removed the substance which proved to be crack cocaine. After removing the substance from the appellant’s pocket, Nelson placed him under arrest.
In support of the subject search and seizure, the state relies upon additional facts which are apparently derived from a pretrial deposition of Officer Nelson. Such additional facts are that Nelson’s fellow officers who radioed him had observed a suspicious transaction involving the appellant and another person wherein the appellant was observed stuffing something in his pocket and running away.
Although a transcript of Nelson’s deposition is a part of the record on appeal in this case, such deposition testimony was not introduced into evidence or otherwise received by the court as part of the evidence upon which the subject motion was determined or the appellant’s guilt decided. The issue before us must be decided based solely upon the testimony and evidence properly presented before the trial court.
Officer Roberts did not have the requisite founded suspicion justifying the stopping and detaining of the appellant. See Gipson v. State, 537 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Basically, the only evidence purporting to justify the appellant’s being stopped was his appearing to run from the officers. It has been held that such is insufficient. Gipson, p. 1081 (and cases cited thereat).
Accordingly, the order adjudicating appellant a delinquent child is REVERSED.
SHIVERS, C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur.