DARRELL DENARD HERNANDEZ, 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 conviction for carrying a concealed firearm because the initial stop lacked founded suspicion and the pat-down search lacked reasonable belief that the defendant was armed.
A stop of a defendant is illegal when officers lack founded suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed, and a pat-down search is illegal when the searching officer lacks reasonable belief that the defendant is armed.
[1] A pat-down search conducted during an unlawful stop is illegal when the searching officer lacks reasonable belief that the subject is armed, even if a weapon is discovere…
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 intelligenceAn officer observed a group of black males in a drug trafficking area, with one individual approaching cars and making contact with persons inside. Of…
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 Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
In this prosecution for carrying a concealed firearm, we reverse the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress a gun found on him during a search under the following circumstances.
An officer testified that he had observed a group of black males standing together in an area known for drug trafficking. One of the individuals, according to the officer, would leave the group and approach a car, make contact with a person in the ear, and then walk away. The officer could not identify that individual as the defendant. Based upon those observations, additional officers approached the group and conducted a pat-down search of each member of the group. The officer who searched defendant and found the gun testified that he did not see in the group anyone with weapons or anything that looked like a weapon. He testified that the officers searched everyone in 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, 543 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delad Sec. Co. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 695 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Caber Sys., Inc. v. Department of Gen. Serve., 580 So. 2d 325, 338(Fla. 1st DCA 1988).…
Authorities Cited
- In re D.M., 543 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Jordan v. State, 544 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Stevenson v. State, 565 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)