THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BRENDA LEE WARSHAN AND JAMES EHLER, APPELLEES
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 State appealed a trial court's order suppressing evidence of cocaine possession. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the officer had founded suspicion under the Stop and Frisk Law to detain the defendants based on observations suggesting cocaine use, and that subsequent observations provided probable cause for arrest.
The officer had founded suspicion under Florida Statutes section 901.151 to make an investigatory stop based on his observation of Ehler appearing to inhale cocaine. The officer's subsequent observations—the concealing motion, powdery residue, and the fallen envelope containing cocaine—provided probable cause for arrest.
[1] An officer's observation of a person appearing to inhale a substance from their hand to their nose, coupled with furtive movements to conceal something, can establish a f…
[2] A founded suspicion for an investigatory stop allows a temporary detention for investigation.
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“the officer had a founded suspicion to make an investigatory stop pursuant to section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1989). Based on the officer's observation, training, and experience, it appeared that defendant Ehler was inhaling cocaine.”
Establishes the standard and basis for the investigatory stop under the Stop and Frisk Law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt 5 a.m., Sergeant Catala observed defendants Ehler and Warshan sitting in a parked pickup truck outside a closed bar. From approximately fifteen yar…
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 Stop And Frisk cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals an order granting a motion to suppress. We reverse.
While on patrol at 5 a.m., the arresting officer, Sergeant Catala, saw defendants James Ehler and Brenda Warshan sitting in a pickup truck parked in a lot outside a closed bar. From a distance of about fifteen yards away and while Catala was driving by, he saw Ehler put his hand up to his nose, put his head down and then back. He thought Ehler was inhaling cocaine, so he turned and pulled up about twenty feet in front of the truck. As the uniformed officer walked up to the truck, he saw Ehler make a motion down between his legs, as if trying to conceal something. Catala stated that he was a police officer and defendants were not free to leave; he shined his flashlight into the truck. He noticed some powdery white residue on Ehler’s pants and on the floor at his feet. He asked the two to get out of the truck and as Ehler stepped out, a wallet fell from between his legs to the floor. A manila envelope also fell out of the wallet onto the ground. The officer looked into the envelope and saw a Ziploc baggie which contained a white powdery substance. A cred it card in the wallet also had on it a similar powdery substance. The officer field tested the contents of the baggie and residue on the floor and the results were positive for cocaine. The officer arrested both defendants for possession of cocaine and Warshan for possession of paraphernalia (a pipe discovered in a search incident to arrest).
Defendants moved to suppress the evidence seized, arguing that there had been an illegal seizure of the person of defendants. The trial court granted the motion and the State has appealed.
We conclude that the officer had a founded suspicion to make an investigatory stop pursuant to section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1989). Based on the officer’s observation, training, and experience, it appeared that defendant Ehler was inhaling cocaine. That observation provided the officer with a founded suspicion under the Stop and Frisk Law, which allowed the officer to effect a temporary detention for investigation. Id. § 901.151(2) — (3); see Kehoe v. State, 521 So. 2d 1094, 1095-96 (Fla.1988); Diaz v. State, 548 So. 2d 843, 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); L.S. v. State, 547 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Thereafter, the officer’s further observations provided probable cause for the arrest of defendants. See State v. Hall, 376 So. 2d 276, 278-79 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 637 (Fla.1980); State v. Roker, 290 So. 2d 525, 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); see also § 901.151(4), Fla.Stat. (1989).
The order under review is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sites v. State, 582 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…ons therein. See Griggs v. State, 565 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Spence v. State, 525 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); McCloud v. State, 491 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Lower v. State, 348 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Cf. State v. Warshan, 580 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); State v. Jacobs, 574 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); State v. Milmoe, 541 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). GLICKSTEIN, C.J., ANSTEAD, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.…
-
Siders v. State, 679 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See State v. Warshan, 580 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). PETERSON, C.J., and DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Kehoe v. State, 521 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1988)
- Antonio Muina, M.D. v. Sheriff OF Gulf Cnty., 376 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- L.S. v. State, 547 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- State v. Roker, 290 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Diaz v. State, 548 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)