STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH JAY BOONE, 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.
Florida appeals the suppression of crack cocaine that the defendant abandoned during a police encounter. The court reverses, holding that the officer's questions during an initial consensual encounter did not constitute an unlawful seizure, and the defendant's abandonment of the drugs occurred lawfully.
No. The officer's questions without a show of authority did not transform the consensual encounter into an illegal stop or seizure. The defendant's abandonment of the drugs occurred during a lawful consensual encounter.
[1] A police officer's actions do not transform a consensual encounter into an unlawful stop when the officer asks a suspect what is in their hand without a show of authority…
[2] Evidence abandoned by a suspect during a consensual encounter with law enforcement is admissible.
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 intelligence“the police officer's actions did not transform the encounter into an unlawful stop”
States the core holding that the officer's conduct remained within lawful bounds of a consensual encounter
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer patrolling a high-drug area in Bartow at 9:00 p.m. noticed the defendant and another man talking under a tree near an intersection. T…
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
ALTENBERND, Judge.
The state appeals an order granting Mr. Boone’s motion to suppress several pieces of crack cocaine which he abandoned while talking to a police officer. We reverse the order, because the police officer’s actions did not transform the encounter into an unlawful stop. State v. Wilson, 566 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
While patrolling a high drug area in Bar-tow, at 9:00 p.m., in a marked police car, an officer noticed Mr. Boone and another man conversing under a tree. The tree was near the edge of the street at an intersection. The* officer recognized both men because he had arrested them in the past and routinely ran outstanding warrant checks on them. As he turned the corner, he thought he saw something in Mr. Boone’s hand.
When the defendant noticed the officer, he quickly put his hand behind his back. The officer stopped his car a few feet from the defendant without turning on his overhead lights or siren. While still in the car, the officer asked the defendant how he was doing. Mr. Boone did not answer, so the officer asked him what he had in his hand behind his back. The defendant said he had nothing in his hand. A few seconds later, however, the officer saw or heard something fall behind the defendant onto the asphalt. The officer shined his flashlight in that direction and saw a Tylenol bottle with several pieces of white substance laying around the bottle. As the officer did this, Mr. Boone ran away.
The officer got out of his car and picked up these items. Because the officer knew the defendant, he did not chase him. A subsequent test established that the white substance was crack cocaine. Thereafter, the defendant was arrested.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court was persuaded that an initial consensual encounter in this case was transformed into an illegal seizure of Mr. Boone’s person when the officer asked him what was in his hand. We have previously held that such questions by a police officer without a show of authority do not transform an encounter into a stop. Wilson; State v. Starke, 574 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Although California v. Hodari D., — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991), involved an abandonment of drugs by a defendant after he fled, rather than moments before flight, the Supreme Court’s reasoning in that recent decision seems to make it even more difficult to establish a seizure of the person by a show of authority.
The undisputed evidence at this suppression hearing established an abandonment of drugs during a consensual encounter. Accordingly, the suppression order is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blake v. State, 939 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…officer, and then turned away and resumed walking was not investigatory stop); Siplin v. State, 795 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (use of spotlight has been found not to transform a consensual encounter into an investigatory stop); State v. Boone, 613 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (officer’s actions in shining flashlight in the direction of defendant did not transform the encounter into an unlawful stop); State v. Hughes, 562 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (action of officers in approaching defendant’s park…
-
State v. Crumpton, 676 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…or she is not free to end the encounter and depart.” Id. at 188. Our decisions predating Popple echo these fundamental principles. See, e.g., State v. Jenkins, 616 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 623 So. 2d 494 (Fla.1993); State v. Boone, 613 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); State v. DeCosey, 596 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); State v. Starke, 574 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); State v. Wilson, 566 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); State v. Simons, 549 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (cited with approval…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991)
- State v. Wilson, 566 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- State v. Starke, 574 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)