CURTIS ROGERS, 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 and suppressed cocaine seized during an unlawful detention, finding the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain the appellant under Florida Statutes section 901.151.
An officer lacked well-founded suspicion to detain the appellant under section 901.151, Florida Statutes, and therefore the cocaine seized must be suppressed.
[1] An officer's detention of a person must be supported by well-founded suspicion under section 901.151, Florida Statutes, and evidence legally insufficient to establish suc…
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 arresting officer seized cocaine from appellant Curtis Rogers during a detention.…
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 Well-Founded Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We review by appeal the order denying appellant’s motion to suppress cocaine seized from him by the arresting officer. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling that the motion was not untimely filed under the circumstances shown on this record. Accordingly, we agree with appellant that the court’s denial of the motion is reviewable on this appeal. The court erred, in denying the motion, however, as the circumstances shown by the evidence are legally insufficient to support the state’s contention that the officer had a well-founded suspicion to detain appellant under section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1989). See Curry v. State, 532 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Anderson v. State, 576 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Jenkins v. State, 524 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); G.J.P. v. State, 469 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Currens v. State, 363 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In view of this holding, we need not address the state’s reliance on Reynolds v. State, 558 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), which we find to be factually distinguishable in material respects in any event.
The appealed conviction is reversed and the case remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., and CAWTHON, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- G.J.P. v. State, 469 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Currens v. State, 363 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Jenkins v. State, 524 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Curry v. State, 532 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Anderson v. State, 576 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Reynolds v. State, 558 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)