DOREEN HELLER, 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.
Doreen Heller was convicted of drug possession and paraphernalia offenses after police discovered contraband during a vehicle search at a highway rest stop. The court reversed her convictions, holding that the second police encounter—which led to the search—was unconstitutional because it lacked the requisite founded suspicion under the Fourth Amendment.
The court held that while the initial stop to clarify the license plate discrepancy was proper, the second encounter was unconstitutional because the observation of needle marks on the passenger's arm does not establish founded suspicion that the driver committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Therefore, the drugs and paraphernalia seized as a result of this illegal police conduct must be suppressed.
[1] An initial traffic stop based on a license plate discrepancy that is later corrected is permissible.
[2] A citizen may be required to submit to an investigative stop only when it is based upon a founded suspicion of criminal activity.
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“While a citizen can be forced to submit to an investigative stop, such a stop is lawfully done only when based upon a "founded suspicion" grounded upon "factual observations in light of his knowledge and experience that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime."”
Establishes the legal standard required for a lawful investigative stop under Terry v. Ohio
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant and a passenger were stopped at an interstate highway rest stop when officers ran a tag check that initially showed the wrong vehicle regist…
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 Unlawful Possession Of A Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from convictions for unlawful possession of a controlled substance 1 and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia.2 Appellant asserts as error the denial of her motion to suppress evidence. We reverse and order appellant discharged.
Appellant and a passenger were in a car at an interstate highway rest stop when two patrolling officers ran a tag check on the car. The radio response to the tag check showed the registration plate belonged on a different vehicle. Appellant was pulled over and asked for her license and car registration. After appellant produced both, the officer realized he had called in the wrong tag number. The proper number was called in and came back clean. The officer then told appellant she was free to go. After appellant returned to her car, the officer’s partner said he noticed “needle-marks” on the passenger’s arm. Based upon this comment the two officers again approached appellant. She was required to get out of her car and answer several questions. When asked if she had any drugs in the car she hung her head and said yes. A search and seizure ensued.
The officer’s initial stop of appellant to explain the license plate discrepancy was proper. Esteen v. State, 503 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). However, when she was again required to submit to their orders the officers committed constitutional wrongs.
While a citizen can be forced to submit to an investigative stop, such a stop is lawfully done only when based upon a “founded suspicion” grounded upon “factual observations in light of his knowledge and experience that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Bastien v. State, 522 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). A hunch or mere suspicion does not count. Davis v. State, 497 So. 2d 1344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The observation of needle marks on a passenger’s arm comes nowhere near establishing a legitimate ground to reasonably suspect the driver is, has, or will shortly commit a crime. Indeed, it is not enough evidence, standing alone, to create a founded suspicion to detain the passenger. Because the illegal drugs and paraphernalia were seized as a result of illegal police conduct, violative of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 12 and 23 of our state constitution, the trial judge erred in failing to suppress their introduction in evidence. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Captan v. State, 531 So. 2d 88 (Fla.1988), cert. den., Florida v. Caplan, 489 U.S. 1099, 109 S.Ct. 1577, 103 L.Ed.2d 942 (1989); Jennings v. State, 512 So. 2d 169 (Fla.1987), cert. den., Jennings v. Florida, 484 U.S. 1079, 108 S.Ct. 1061, 98 L.Ed.2d 1023 (1988); State v. LeCroy, 461 So. 2d 88 (Fla.1984), cert. den., LeCroy v. Florida, 473 U.S. 907, 105 S.Ct. 3532, 87 L.Ed.2d 656 (1985).
CONVICTIONS REVERSED, APPELr LANT DISCHARGED.
HARRIS and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . § 893.135, Fla.Stat. (1989).
. § 893.147, Fla.Stat. (1989).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cobb v. State, 642 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…cion” need not be sufficiently fact-based to rise to the level of probable cause for arrest, but it must be enough to draw the officer’s attention to something more specific than a wide, unparticularized range of potential suspects. Heller v. State, 576 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); James v. State, 556 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). As the ruling on a motion to suppress comes clothed with a presumption of correct [*659] ness, we interpret and rely on the following evidence and reasonable inferences theref…
-
State v. Fischer, 987 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…tag is permissible....”); State v. S.P., 580 So. 2d 216, 217 (Fla. 4th DCA) ("Discovery that the tag did not match the vehicle justified a stop to seek an explanation for the discrepancy.”), review denied, 592 So. 2d 682 (Fla.1991); Heller v. State, 576 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 5lh DCA 1991); see also State v. Kindle, 782 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding that stop of vehicle for inoperative trailer lights and missing tag was clearly lawful).…
-
State v. S.P., 580 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…s jurisdiction and running a cheek on a license tag. To do so is not a stop, is not a seizure and does not impermissibly intrude upon any right of the defendant’s privacy. State v. Smith, 529 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). See also Heller v. State, 576 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Discovery that the tag did not match the vehicle justified a stop to seek an explanation for the discrepancy. Heller. Thereafter, discovery that the defendant’s driver’s license had been suspended was sufficient to permit taking…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- Clark A. Caplan v. State, 531 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1988)
- Thomas v. Kadish, 473 U.S. 907 (U.S. 1985)
- Jennings v. State, 512 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1987)
- Fulton v. Collins, 473 U.S. 907 (U.S. 1985)
- Great Plains Ins. Co. v. Midgley, 522 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Esteen v. State, 503 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Mays v. Texas, 484 U.S. 1079 (U.S. 1988)
- Post v. Ohio, 484 U.S. 1079 (U.S. 1988)