ROBERT FREDERICK HEWLETT, 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.
Robert Frederick Hewlett was convicted of cocaine possession after police stopped his truck parked near a known drug dealer's property and found crack cocaine. The appellate court reversed, holding that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the investigatory stop because they observed no suspicious activity, transactions, or criminal behavior.
The court reversed the conviction and sentence, holding that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion or a founded suspicion to justify the stop. The circumstances did not support a lawful detention, and the subsequent search and seizure of evidence was therefore unconstitutional.
[1] A traffic stop is not justified by the mere presence of a vehicle near the property of a known drug dealer when no suspicious transactions or activities are observed.
[2] A founded suspicion of unlawful activity is required to justify the detention of a driver and passenger during a traffic stop.
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“Except for being on or in the vicinity of the property of a known drug dealer who was not observed at the scene, there was nothing that the officers observed nor was there a totality of circumstances presented that would support a founded suspicion that appellant or his passenger were engaged in unlawful activities such as would justify the detention of appellant.”
Establishes the lack of reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the investigatory stop
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 17, 1990, at approximately 4:00 a.m., police officers observed a pickup truck with its lights out parked on or near the property of a know…
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 Founded Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, Robert Frederick Hewlett, was convicted of possession of cocaine. He argues on appeal that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. We agree and, accordingly, reverse appellant’s conviction and sentence. Our reversal on that issue makes moot the sentencing issues raised by appellant.
At the suppression hearing, it was revealed that on November 17, 1990, at approximately 4:00 a.m., police officers on a routine patrol in Sulpher Springs observed a pickup truck with its lights out parked off the street either on or in the immediate vicinity of the property of a known drug dealer. As the officers’ vehicle approached the truck, the officers observed three unknown black males standing next to the truck on the passenger’s side. As the officers approached nearer the truck, or as the black males saw them, the black males left the area and appellant drove the pickup truck away at a high, but apparently lawful, rate of speed. The officers followed the truck and eventually stopped it some distance away. A canine unit was brought to the location of the stop, the pickup truck was searched and seven pieces of rock cocaine were found beneath the passenger seat.
The officers observed no suspicious transactions between the unknown black males and the occupants of the truck. There was no apparent exchange of money or drugs. Neither the black males nor appellant and his passenger were known or suspected drug dealers. Appellant was not cited for or warned of violating any traffic regulation. Except for being on or in the vicinity of the property of a known drug dealer who was not observed at the scene, there was nothing that the officers observed nor was there a totality of circumstances presented that would support a founded suspicion that appellant or his passenger were engaged in unlawful activities such as would justify the detention of appellant.
We are unable to distinguish the circumstances of this search from that in Morris v. State, 519 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), where this court reversed the denial of a motion to suppress.
We can and do distinguish it factually, however, from the recent Florida Supreme Court case concerning this issue, State v. Anderson, 591 So. 2d 611 (Fla.1992). In Anderson, police officers conducting undercover surveillance observed an unknown black male making several hand transactions with other people that appeared to involve a distribution of “items.” Eventually the black male conducted such a transaction with Anderson who, when he observed a marked police car, made several furtive or suspicious movements with the distributed item which our supreme court found could “reasonably indicate” Anderson had committed, was committing or was about to commit a crime. Since we have no such observed transactions and no furtive or suspicious movements by appellant, we conclude Anderson does not apply.
We find the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress was error and reverse his conviction and sentence and remand with instructions that he be discharged.
FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powell v. State, 649 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…a trailer where the officers knew drug dealing occurred, his passenger went into the trailer, and the passenger returned to the truck in a few minutes. These circumstances do not constitute a founded suspicion of drug dealing. See Hewlett v. State, 599 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (no founded suspicion when officers observed pickup truck with lights out parked off street in immediate vicinity of property of known drug dealer at 4:00 a.m. with three males standing next to truck which drove away when driver s…
-
Copeland v. State, 756 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…’s opinion in Wardlow, 120 S.Ct. 673, we would have found that the stop violated Mr. Copeland’s Fourth Amendment rights. See Stiffler v. State, 744 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); M.J.S. v. State, 624 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Hewlett v. State, 599 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Dames v. State, 566 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). In Wardlow, however, the Supreme Court held that a stop under similar circumstances did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In that case, the defendant engaged in “headlong flight”…
-
Cornell Cunningham v. State, 884 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…dan v. State, 707 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), the defendant was parked, near midnight, in a dark area near a closed business that had been burglarized in the past. He pulled his truck away as the deputy approached. Similarly, in Hewlett v. State, 599 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), three men, who were parked next to the property of a known drug dealer but who were themselves unknown to the police, jumped in their truck and drove away at a fast but lawful rate of speed as an officer approached on routine pat…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Anderson, 591 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1992)
- Morris v. State, 519 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)