WILLIE DUPONT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Possession Of Cannabis With Intent To Sell cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse defendant’s conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to sell or deliver. We conclude the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the cannabis which was found during a search of defendant.
We discern no proper basis for the search. The officer had no basis to conclude that defendant was armed. Nor did he have a basis to conclude that defendant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. While the officer observed defendant standing in front of a cigarette display putting objects into his pockets, the record shows no basis for a belief by the officer that the objects were cigarettes or, for that matter, were any kind of contraband. The officer’s bare suspicion was not enough. See Mitchell v. State, 558 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Peabody v. State, 556 So. 2d 826, 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Reversed and remanded with directions to enter a judgment of acquittal.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Giles v. State, 598 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…ablets of a morphine derivative on his person. We conclude that the facts and circumstances known to the police were insufficient to create probable cause to arrest the appellant. At most, only a founded suspicion was created. See Dupont v. State, 561 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Without more than occurred here, the mere fact that the appellant was a passenger in. a car also containing a person who was suspected of a crime is insufficient to create probable cause. See Rogers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1148 (Fla…
Authorities Cited
- Peabody v. State, 556 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Mitchell v. State, 558 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)