WALTER MACK REED, III, 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.
Walter Mack Reed III was stopped by police based on an anonymous tip that lacked specific identifying information. The court held that the stop was illegal because the tip did not meet the reliability standard for anonymous tips, and that the subsequent consent to search was tainted by this illegality, requiring reversal.
The stop was illegal because the anonymous tip contained no specific facts to distinguish the two black males from any other two black males. The subsequent consent to search was tainted by the illegal stop because there was no clear break in the chain of illegality sufficient to dissipate the taint of the prior illegal police action.
[1] A stop based upon an anonymous tip is valid only if the reliability of the tip has been established through detailed and specific information later corroborated by prompt…
[2] An anonymous tip lacking specific details to distinguish the individuals described from others does not establish sufficient reliability for a lawful stop.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 stop based upon an anonymous tip is valid where the reliability of the tip has been established through detailed and specific information later corroborated by prompt police action in locating the described individual in the named location.”
Establishes the legal standard for validating stops based on anonymous tips
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Gross received a radio dispatch about two black males involved in drug activity believed to be carrying firearms in the St. Petersburg area. O…
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 Reasonable Suspicion For Investigatory Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1363] HALL, Judge.
The appellant, Walter Mack Reed, III, challenges the denial of his motion to suppress crack cocaine. He contends that he was illegally stopped and, therefore, his consent to the subsequent search of his person was tainted. We agree and reverse.
Officer Albert Gross testified at the suppression hearing that while he was on patrol shortly after midnight, he received a radio dispatch that two black males involved in drug activity and believed to be carrying some type of firearms were walking the street in the area of Ninth Avenue and Seventh Street in St. Petersburg. Officer Gross and his partner parked their cruiser and, ten to fifteen minutes later, while walking the area, they came upon two black males. Officer Gross asked the two men to come over to the officers, who immediately advised the men they were going to conduct a pat down for weapons. The officers did not find any weapons on the men. Officer Gross then explained why the officers were in the area. After informing the appellant that he did not have to consent, Officer Gross asked the appellant if he would consent to a search of his person for drugs. The appellant responded affirmatively. Officer Gross then asked the appellant if he would mind a search of his pockets, and the appellant responded that he would not. It was in the appellant’s shirt pocket that Officer Gross found some chunks of crack cocaine.
We agree with the appellant’s contention that his initial stop was illegal and tainted his consent to the search of his person. “A stop based upon an anonymous tip is valid where the reliability of the tip has been established through detailed and specific information later corroborated by prompt police action in locating the described individual in the named location.” State v. Marsh, 576 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The information relayed to the police officers in this case clearly did not meet this test as it contained no facts to distinguish the two black males stopped by the officers from any other two black males.
The illegality of the stop having been established, we address the state’s contention that the search of the appellant was nevertheless legal because it was conducted pursuant to the appellant’s voluntary consent. A suspect’s consent to a search subsequent to illegal police activity “will be held voluntary only if there is clear and convincing proof of an unequivocal break in the chain of illegality sufficient to dissipate the taint of prior official illegal action.” Norman v. State, 379 So. 2d 643, 647 (Fla. 1980) (citations omitted). We find that there was no unequivocal break between the illegal stop of the appellant and his consent to the search.
Accordingly, we reverse the appellant’s judgment and sentence and remand this cause with directions to grant the appellant’s motion to suppress.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Paul, 638 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…and convincing proof there was an unequivocal break in the chain of illegality (in the illegal stop) sufficient to dissipate the taint of the prior illegal police action. Norman; State v. Boyd, 615 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); West; Reed v. State, 577 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The taint may be dissipated when the defendant is advised of his constitutional right to refuse consent to search and nonetheless voluntarily does so. Boyd; Gonzalez v. State, 578 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); State v. Simm, 558…
-
Faulkner v. State, 834 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…mption remained that Faulkner’s consent was involuntary, and the circuit court should have granted his motion to suppress. See Davis v. State, 744 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Satterfield v. State, 609 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Reed v. State, 577 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge the defendant. BLUE, C.J., Concurs. SILBERMAN, J., Concurs specially with opinion.…
-
Satterfield v. State, 609 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…icer Haberl admitted that at that point the officers assumed that the occupants were merely “fooling around.” Because the facts do not show a break in the chain of illegality, any consent to the search was tainted by the illegal stop. Reed v. State, 577 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Castillo v. State, 536 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The state contends that the appellant’s detention could be justified based on a suspected trespass alone, citing State v. Pye, 551 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Although…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Norman v. State, 379 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1980)
- State v. Marsh, 576 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)