CURTIS JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Curtis Johnson appeals his conviction for drug possession, challenging the seizure of cocaine found in a matchbox in his shirt pocket. The Third District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that the officer lacked probable cause to search Johnson based solely on observing an ambiguous hand-to-hand transaction at a distance, and therefore the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment.
The court held that observing an unknown object being handed between two people in exchange for money, without additional factors such as packaging known to be commonly used for illegal drugs, a tip from a reliable informant, or plain view of contraband, does not establish probable cause for arrest or search. The warrantless search of Johnson's shirt pocket therefore violated the Fourth Amendment and should not have been permitted.
[1] An officer's observation of a person handing an unknown object to another and receiving money, without additional factors, does not establish probable cause for an arrest…
[2] The discovery of contraband in a matchbox during a pat-down search for weapons is unlawful if there was no probable cause for the arrest prior to the search.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 is no authority for a finding of probable cause on the facts as presented here.”
Establishes the court's core holding that the government failed to establish probable cause to justify the warrantless search.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police sergeant observed from a high-rise parking garage a person in a brightly colored shirt in a downtown Miami alleyway engage in what appeared t…
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 Investigatory Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Using binoculars, from a high-rise parking garage, a police sergeant observed a person in a brightly colored shirt, sitting in a lounge chair during mid-day, give another person an unrecognizable item in exchange for money. There was no view of what was being given for the money or where the item had been stored prior to the transaction. The person under surveillance was located at the end of an alleyway in a depressed part of downtown Miami. Suspecting a drug transaction, the police sergeant radioed two other officers who were dispatched to the scene for an investigation. The sergeant witnessed three more transactions while those officers were en route.
The suspect, Johnson, was confronted by the officers and asked for identification and whether he was selling drugs. He complied with the request for identification and denied any involvement with drugs. A pat-down search for weapons was unfruitful. One of the officers noticed a small matchbox in Johnson’s shirt pocket which he retrieved and examined — without consent. It contained 0.4 grams of cocaine rocks. Johnson was arrested.
After his pretrial motion to suppress the evidence was denied, Johnson was convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison. He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence as the product of a warrantless search without probable cause.
There is no authority for a finding of probable cause on the facts as presented here. Although the arresting officer had found contraband hidden in matchboxes on prior occasions, he did not express an opinion that such containers are commonly used for that purpose. Compare Blanding v. State, 446 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (probable cause existed where packaging was known by officer to be commonly used for contraband drugs); Skelton v. State, 349 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (same). We agree with the defendant that an officer’s observation of someone handing an unknown object to another and taking back money, without more, does not establish probable cause for an arrest or search for the sale of narcotics. See United States v. Green, 670 F. 2d 1148 (D.C.Cir.1981); Commonwealth v. Hunt, 280 Pa.Super. 205, 421 A. 2d 684 (1980).
All the cases cited by the State included additional factors such as packaging distinctly common in the illegal drugs trade, State v. Jordan, 458 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); a tip from a reliable informant, State v. Maya, 529 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); or a plain view of the contraband after the initial reasonable suspicion stop in an area known for drug transactions. Johnson v. State, 540 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
The defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress should have been granted as there was no probable cause for an arrest prior to the search which led to the discovery of the contraband. See Piediscalzo v. State, 549 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (police officer had a well-founded suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop, but improperly reached into the defendant’s shirt pocket to remove a cigarette package).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of J.H., 580 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…of her, and (2) that even if there was founded suspicion, the subsequent full [*165] body search was unlawfully intrusive and beyond the scope of an investigative stop. The motion was heard at trial and denied. I acknowledge that Johnson v. State, 565 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), states: [A]n officer’s observations of someone handling an unknown object to another and taking back money, without more, does not establish probable cause for an arrest or search for the sale of [drugs]. Id. at 414. However, t…1 / 2
-
State v. Caicedo, 622 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…DCA 1991). We recognize that the mere observation of a money transaction, or an offi- [*151] eer’s bare suspicion of drug activity, are insufficient to create probable cause. See Cummo v. State, 581 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Johnson v. State, 565 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).1 However, this case involved much more than a money transaction accompanied by an officer’s suspicions. The officer observed significant additional facts concerning the hesitation and selection of the substance by the defendant,…
-
Graham v. State, 822 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ial. See Cross v. State, 560 So. 2d 228 (Fla.1990) (stating that officers had probable cause to believe round-shaped, taped object carried contraband based on experience in seeing similarly packaged cocaine on prior occasions); cf. Johnson v. State, 565 So. 2d 413, 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (holding that officer lacked probable cause to search where although he had found contraband hidden in matchboxes on prior occasions, he did not expressly opine that such containers were commonly used for carrying drugs). Giv…
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
- Skelton v. State, 349 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- United States v. Green, 670 F.2d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
- State v. Maya, 529 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Blanding v. State, 446 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- McLEOD v. State, 549 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- State v. Jordan, 458 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Johnson v. State, 540 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)