JERRY MOUNT PEEK, 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.
Jerry Mount Peek appeals his conviction for cocaine possession, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a street encounter with a police officer. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that the officer's initial contact did not constitute a custodial stop and that no Miranda violation occurred.
The officer's request that Peek come to the patrol car did not constitute a stop requiring founded suspicion, and no Miranda violation occurred because Miranda rights do not attach until there is in-custody interrogation, which did not exist here.
[1] A police officer may ask questions of a person in a street encounter without violating Fourth Amendment rights.
[2] Miranda rights do not attach until there is an in-custody interrogation.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A policeman may ask questions of a person in a street encounter without violating fourth amendment rights.”
Establishes the legal standard that casual police inquiries during street encounters do not require founded suspicion.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Cocoa police officer responded to an anonymous tip of drug sales at an apartment complex known for drug activity. Upon arrival, the officer recogniz…
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 Founded Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Jerry Mount Peek appeals the judgment entered and sentence imposed following his plea of no contest to the charge of possession of cocaine. Peek reserved the right to challenge the trial court’s earlier denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
A City of Cocoa police officer was dispatched to the Manorwood Apartments after an anonymous caller reported drug sales at an apartment complex which was known by the police to be a location of previous drug activity. Upon arrival, the officer recognized Peek, who was approaching an automobile. The officer stopped his patrol car nearby, and said, “Hey, Jerry, hey, man, come here a minute.” As Peek turned and started walking toward him, the officer noticed Peek’s clenched fist. When Peek arrived at the officer’s car, the officer asked what he was holding. Peek responded by displaying his empty hands. The officer then got out of his car and discovered a cocaine rock next to his car approximately one to two feet distant from Peek. The officer picked up the rock and asked Peek if it belonged to him and if he had dropped it. Peek indicated that someone on the other side of the apartments gave him a piece of cocaine to give to the occupants of the automobile and that he was to receive five or ten dollars for the delivery. Peek was then told that he was being placed under arrest.
Peek argues that the officer’s request that he come to the patrol car was a stop without founded suspicion in violation of the Fourth Amendment, that the questioning without a Miranda warning about the ownership of the cocaine rock was a Fifth Amendment violation, and that therefore evidence of the cocaine rock and Peek’s statements should be suppressed. The encounter did not amount to a stop, and there was no Miranda violation. A policeman may ask questions of a person in a street encounter without violating fourth amendment rights. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983); Lightbourne v. State, 438 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1330, 79 L.Ed.2d 725 (1984); Som mer v. State, 465 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Burke v. State, 465 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Miranda rights do not attach until there is an in-custody interrogation, and nothing in the record suggests that the officer placed appellant in custody prior to the incriminating statement. See Williams v. State, 564 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Morris v. State, 557 So. 2d 27 (Fla.1990).
The trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 640 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…7, 111 S.Ct. at 2388. See also Thames v. State, 592 So. 2d 733, 735 (Fla. 1st DCA) (a voluntary encounter does not become involuntary merely because a request is made by a uniformed officer), review denied, 599 So. 2d 1280 (Fla.1992); Peek v. State, 575 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (an officer may ask questions of a person in a street encounter which does not violate Fourth Amendment rights). At the point Detective Irwin caught Johnson in the he, and given all of the preceding [*228] circumstances which h…
Authorities Cited
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983)
- Lightbourne v. State, 438 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1983)
- Griffin v. Texas, 465 U.S. 1051 (U.S. 1984)
- Kinnett Dairies, Inc. v. Dairymen, Inc., 465 U.S. 1051 (U.S. 1984)
- Lothar Sommer v. State, 465 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Burke v. State, 465 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Morris v. State, 557 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1990)
- Se. Bank, N.A. v. Grefs Constr. & Roofing Corp., 564 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)