KENNETH STEVENSON, 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.
The court reversed the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress cocaine because the police officer lacked founded suspicion to conduct a patdown stop, and the cocaine was not validly abandoned.
A patdown conducted without founded suspicion of criminal activity violates the Fourth Amendment and any evidence obtained must be suppressed.
[1] A patdown following a police stop requires founded suspicion that a crime was committed, was being committed, or was about to be committed; absence of such suspicion rend…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer stopped defendant in a cocaine area, observing him with hands in jacket pockets and speaking with a white male in a truck who left wh…
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 Abandonment Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
We reverse the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress cocaine found by a police officer during a patdown of the defendant.
The patdown was conducted following a stop of defendant by the arresting officer, not, as the trial court found, during a mere consensual encounter, because, as the officer testified, defendant was not free to leave. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983); Bostick v. State, 554 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1989). To validate the stop it was necessary for the officer to have had a founded suspicion that a crime was committed, was being committed, or was about to be committed. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). See also Bostick, 554 So. 2d at 1156. No such suspicion existed, as the trial court also found. The record merely indicates that the defendant, who was in “a cocaine area,” had his hands in his jacket pockets with his left hand appearing bigger than his right and had been speaking with a white male in a truck who left when the officer approached. See Martin v. State, 521 So. 2d 260 (Fla.2d DCA 1988); Mosley v. State, 519 So. 2d 58 (Fla.2d DCA 1988).
Nor was the cocaine admissible by reason of its having been abandoned by defendant. The officer testified that the defendant dropped the cocaine to the ground while the officer was conducting the patdown. See Wallace v. State, 540 So. 2d 254 (Fla.4th DCA 1989); State v. Oliver, 368 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.3d DCA 1979).
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CLAIRE K. LUTEN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Messer v. State, 609 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…dealing with drive-up drug sales in high crime neighborhoods hinge upon this factor. See State v. Clark, 605 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Stanton v. State, 576 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 584 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1991); Stevenson v. State, 565 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Peabody v. State, 556 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In those instances where no contraband was observed, the officer was deemed to have had only a “bare” rather than a “reasonable” suspicion that the defendant was engaged in cri…
-
Hernandez v. State, 580 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…the group because a shooting had occurred in that area the night before. The stop of defendant was illegal because the officers did not have a founded suspicion that a crime had been committed or was about to be committed. See Stevenson v. State, 565 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Jordan v. State, 544 So. 2d 1073, 1074 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). In addition, the pat-down search was illegal because the officer who searched defendant did not have a reasonable belief that defendant was armed. See Daniels v. State, 5…
Authorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983)
- State v. Oliver, 368 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Bostick v. State, 554 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1989)
- Mosley v. State, 519 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Wallace v. State, 540 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Martin v. State, 521 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)