GARY ESTEP, 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 officer lacked the required founded suspicion to stop the vehicle, thus the stop was unlawful.
An officer observed a vehicle pull into and out of a closed service station at 6:00 a.m. and stopped it to inquire why. The occupants were subsequentl…
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 Illegal Search And Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of possession of illegal drugs. On appeal, he challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the officer who stopped him did not have the required founded suspicion to do so. We agree and reverse.
At approximately 6:00 a.m., Detective Ross observed a Thunderbird with a Michigan tag pull into and then out of a closed service station along U.S. 41. He stopped the Thunderbird. Appellant was sitting in the passenger seat. When asked why he pulled the car over, Detective Ross replied, “Find out why they wanted to go into a closed gas station.” He also specified that they had been driving rather slowly in a darkened commercial area. Following a search, officers discovered cocaine and heroin inside the vehicle.
Under section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1989), an officer must have a founded suspicion of criminal activity before he can make a stop. A hunch is not enough. The circumstances here were simply insufficient to support the stop. The officer said that the reason he stopped the car was to find out why the occupants wanted to go into a closed service station. This does not rise to the level of a founded suspicion. See Aguila v. State, 567 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Ward v. State, 453 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). As argued by appellant, these circumstances are equally suggestive of travel-weary tourists looking for a restroom or a cup of coffee.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
In the Interest of L.A.D. v. State, 616 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)….’s leaving the scene of the accident. However, neither L.A.D. nor his mother preserved their right to appeal this issue, which clearly does not involve “fundamental error,” and the mother did not raise the issue on appeal. [*109] In Bayer v. State, 597 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), which was brought to the majority’s attention during consideration of this appeal, but which was not discussed in the majority’s opinion, the defendant was similarly ordered, as a condition of probation, to pay restitution for l…
-
Armstrong v. State, 620 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ke minimum monthly restitution payments of $300. Appellant failed to raise a contemporaneous objection to this condition at the sentencing hearing; thus, we conclude that appellant waived the right to challenge this amount on appeal. Bayer v. State, 597 So. 2d 870 (Fla.5th DCA 1992). Further, we note that the $300 amount was supported by the financial affidavit provided by appellant in response to the trial court’s request for a restitution plan or schedule. The affidavit demonstrates net monthly income of $1…
-
J.S. v. State, 717 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…(Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Owens v. State, 679 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Gliszczynski v. State, 654 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); M.A.V. v. State, 643 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Moore v. State, 623 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Bayer v. State, 597 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). This finding that there has been no preservation of a portion of the restitution issues is not in conflict with State v. T.M.B., 23 Fla. L. Weekly S180 (Fla.1998). In that case, the supreme court held that section 924.051, Flor…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Ward v. State, 453 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Aguila v. State, 567 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)