EMELIO HAMILTON, 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 held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress because the deputies lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat-down for weapons.
[1] A police officer may detain a citizen and question them if their behavior creates a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
[2] A police officer may conduct a pat-down of a suspect's outer clothing if they reasonably believe the suspect may be armed.
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 intelligenceDeputies observed Hamilton flagging down a truck in a high-crime area, which they interpreted as drug dealing. One deputy searched Hamilton's pockets,…
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 Pat-Down For Weapons cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Emelio Hamilton appeals his convictions and sentences for possession of cocaine and carrying a concealed firearm. Both the cocaine and the firearm were found in Hamilton’s pants pockets during a police search, which Hamilton challenged in a pretrial motion to suppress.
We conclude that the trial court erred in denying this motion, and reverse. Two Polk County sheriff’s deputies, after attempting to serve an unrelated search warrant near the “Disco 400” in Bradley Junction, observed Hamilton flagging down a passing pickup truck. This occurred in what was described as a “high crime area.” Hamilton spoke to the driver of the pickup, keeping one hand in his pocket. Both deputies considered Hamilton’s gestures and actions to be consistent with street-level cocaine sales. Having made these observations, the deputies instructed Hamilton to place his hands on the truck bed, and one searched his pockets. This officer stated he did so because “it’s known that cocaine dealers carry a weapon.” The witness conceded that he had seen no suspicious bulges in Hamilton’s clothing beforehand, and denied that he had been “in fear for [his] life.”
Hamilton’s activities before detention are perhaps marginally more suspicious than the appellant’s conduct in Martin v. State, 521 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), another case involving the hailing of vehicles in a “high crime area” and one in which we concluded the search and seizure were invalid.
However, as the supreme court recently has reminded us, the “stop and frisk” procedure authorized by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1991), is a two-step process. A citizen may be detained briefly and questioned when his behavior creates a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The police additionally may conduct a “patdown” of the suspect’s outer clothing if they reasonably believe the suspect may be armed. Reynolds v. State, 592 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.1992). Absent such belief, the suspect’s person may not be searched. See, e.g., Strebel v. State, 573 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Thus, even if the deputies were correct in suspecting that Hamilton may have been engaged in a drug transaction, they admitted to no specific, articulable facts which would justify the weapons pat-down. Since the contraband was not discoverable without this intrusion, it was unlawfully seized and subject to suppression.
Reversed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Burns, 698 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…weapon, a lawful detention to investigate suspected drug possession is not a basis for a pat-down, even if the officer testifies that the pat-down was for the officer’s safety. McNeil v. State, 656 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Hamilton v. State, 597 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Schnick v. State, 362 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (temporary detention does not authorize a search “incident to detention”). Accordingly, I would hold the cocaine found and seized was the result of an unlawful search and…
-
Turner v. State, 674 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…forcement officer must be able to articulate reasons for his suspicion. Duncan articulated no reasons that related to Turner. His explanation was that others at that loca [*898] tion in the past had weapons. This was insufficient. Hamilton v. State, 597 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The state argues that even if the initial stop was invalid, the subsequent consent by Turner vitiated the stop. We disagree. A consent to search given after illegal police conduct is presumptively tainted and is deemed involunta…
-
In the Interest of J.L., 623 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…Kell v. State, 559 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Appellant’s appearance in the area, without more, did not warrant an investigatory stop. Id. The officer at bar articulated no facts that would justify the stop and pat-down. See Hamilton v. State, 597 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Accordingly, we reverse the orders on review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. GUNTHER, POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Reynolds v. State, 592 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1992)
- Martin v. State, 521 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Strebel v. State, 573 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)