C.V.H., 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 appealed the denial of his motion to suppress cocaine found during a traffic stop, arguing the stop was pretextual and lacked a valid basis. The court reversed, finding the state failed to establish that a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle absent the officer's suspicions about drug activity.
The court reversed the denial of the suppression motion, holding that the state failed to establish that a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle absent an invalid purpose, as Gibb admitted he could have stopped the vehicle when he first noticed the license plate infraction but did not do so until his drug suspicions were aroused.
[1] A traffic stop is invalid if the officer's stated reason for the stop is a pretext for an ulterior motive.
[2] A police officer must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred to justify a traffic stop.
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“There was no evidence presented that would establish that Gibb or any other police officer would ordinarily have stopped the Lincoln for the license plate infraction.”
Establishes the state's failure to meet its burden of showing a reasonable officer would have made the stop absent improper motivation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Gibb, a narcotics officer, observed C.V.H. exit and re-enter a Lincoln Continental at a gas station. Gibb followed the vehicle to an apartment…
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 Pretextual Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Appellant, C.V.H., entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of one count of possession of cocaine but specifically reserved his right to appeal the court’s denial of his motion to suppress.
The facts of this case are very similar to those described in Monroe v. State, 543 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Officer Gordon Gibb, the only witness to testify at the suppression hearing, was assigned to a special investigation division (narcotics). He testified that, at approximately 4:50 p.m. on October 12, 1988, he observed C.V.H. exit a Lincoln Continental and enter a pickup truck while both vehicles were parked at a gas station. Approximately two minutes later, C.V.H. re-entered the Lincoln, and that vehicle, operated by a young female, exited the gas station premises. Gibb followed in an unmarked vehicle. Gibb noticed that a piece of duct tape partially obscured one of the letters of the Lincoln’s license plate. After several miles, the Lincoln arrived at an apartment house and backed into an assigned parking space. Both occupants remained in the vehicle. Gibb and a fellow officer maintained their surveillance from their automobile and noticed two bicyclists stop at the Lincoln. One of the bicyclists leaned over the driver’s window, engaged the occupants in conversation, and pointed at Gibb. Gibb identified the person on the bicycle from previous interrogation encounters and suspected that the person was involved in illegal drug transactions. The bicyclists and the Lincoln then departed the apartment house parking area. Gibb followed the Lincoln, radioed for backup, and had an officer in a marked patrol unit stop the Lincoln for the license plate infraction. Gibb, his companion, and the backup officer approached the Lincoln, ordered both passengers out of it, and began interrogating C.V.H. about one of the bicyclists. C.V.H. was then asked if the Lincoln could be searched and then his person. Consents were given to both requests with negative results. It was not until C.V.H. was requested to remove his shoe that pieces of rock cocaine were found therein.
There was no evidence presented that would establish that Gibb or any other police officer would ordinarily have stopped the Lincoln for the license plate infraction. Gibb admitted that he could have pulled the Lincoln over for the traffic infraction when originally noticed but did not do so until his suspicions were aroused when the bicyclist, an illicit drug transaction suspect, engaged in conversation with the occupants of the parked Lincoln.
The state acknowledges the applicability of the line of cases 1 requiring a showing that under the facts and circumstances a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle in the absence of an invalid purpose. The state also acknowledges that it failed to carry that burden.
The order denying suppression is reversed with directions to terminate the community control program imposed upon the appellant.
REVERSED.
COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . Kehoe v. State, 521 So. 2d 1094 (Fla.1988); Clemons v. State, 533 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Porcher v. State, 538 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); and Monroe v. State, 543 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Targaczewski v. State, 590 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…p on DUI’s before.” This concession, together with the fact that the officers followed for eleven blocks before making the stop, renders the stop pretextual and unauthorized. See Whitfield v. State, 559 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); C.V.H. v. State, 556 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). REVERSED. DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Kehoe v. State, 521 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1988)
- Monroe v. State, 543 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Porcher v. State, 538 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Orange Buick Co., Inc. v. Durie, 533 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- U.S. Allied, Inc. v. ROE, 533 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)