THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK ROOSEVELT BLACK, 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 State appeals a trial court's order suppressing physical evidence (roofing paper) obtained during a traffic stop of the defendant. The Third District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that the officer had both reasonable suspicion to conduct the initial stop and probable cause to believe a crime had been committed based on the suspicious circumstances.
The court reversed the suppression order, holding that the officer had ample grounds for a brief investigatory stop based on the suspicious circumstances, and that probable cause existed to believe a crime had been committed. The court also noted the officer had an alternative legal basis—probable cause to believe the defendant illegally possessed the shopping cart in violation of Florida Statutes section 506.509.
[1] A police officer may briefly stop a person pushing a shopping cart containing new roofing materials early in the morning if the person appears disheveled and the circumst…
[2] A person's explanation that brand new roofing supplies were found in a trash pile can be considered an incredible story, contributing to probable cause.
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“The officer certainly had ample ground to make a brief stop of the defendant to inquire about the source of the roofing material.”
Establishes that the officer's conduct in stopping the defendant was justified by the suspicious circumstances observed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Metro-Dade police officer observed the defendant at 6:50 a.m. pushing a shopping cart containing six rolls of brand new roofing paper along a street…
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 Stop And Frisk cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals an order suppressing physical evidence. We reverse.
At 6:50 in the morning a Metro-Dade police officer observed defendant pushing a shopping cart along a street. In the cart were six rolls of new roofing paper. The officer stopped defendant to ask him where he got the tar paper. Defendant told him that he found the roofing paper in a trash pile. The roofing paper was brand new, still in its original wrappings.
The officer placed the defendant in his patrol car and drove up the street. Within one-half block, the officer found a house which had several identical rolls of tar paper in the yard, along with a tarring machine. The roofing paper had been stolen from the site. Defendant was charged with burglary by reason of having entered the curtilage to steal the roofing paper. Defendant moved to suppress the rolls of tar paper, contending that they were the product of an illegal stop. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the motion to suppress. We now reverse.
The officer in this case observed the defendant at 6:50 in the morning, pushing rolls of brand new roofing material along a street in a supermarket shopping cart. The defendant was disheveled and unkempt and did not appear to be a person engaged in a construction trade. Plainly, roofing materials are not normally delivered to construction sites in shopping carts. Although this material had not been reported as being stolen, there was an ongoing problem with theft from businesses in the area. The officer certainly had ample ground to make a brief stop of the defendant to inquire about the source of the roofing material. The defendant’s explanation was the incredible story that these brand new roofing supplies had been thrown away in a trash pile, where the defendant found them.
At that point the circumstances warranted a person of reasonable caution to conclude that a crime had been committed, namely, that defendant had stolen the tar paper. Cross v. State, 432 So. 2d 780, 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (Probable cause exists where “facts and circumstances ... would warrant an individual of reasonable caution in believing that an offense had been com-mitted_ Finally, the facts constituting probable cause need not reach the standard of conclusiveness and probability required of the circumstantial facts upon which a conviction must be based.”) (citations omitted); Russell v. State, 266 So. 2d 92, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 271 So. 2d 140 (Fla.1972) (“The officer need not actually see the law being violated nor must he satisfy himself beyond any question that a felony has been committed.”).
The officer also testified that defendant was pushing a shopping cart containing a store logo. The officer had probable cause to believe that defendant was in illegal possession of the shopping cart, in violation of section 506.509, Florida Statutes (1991). The trial court declined to consider the section 506.509 argument because it concluded that the officer’s real reason for making the stop was to investigate regarding the tar paper. We note that the establishment of a founded suspicion or probable cause is established by reference to an objective standard. The fact that an officer relies on one legal theory in making a stop or an arrest does not preclude the State from establishing a founded suspicion or probable cause on a different theory if that theory is supported by the record. See Routly v. State, 440 So. 2d 1257, 1261 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 468 U.S. 1220, 104 S.Ct. 3591, 82 L.Ed.2d 888 (1984).
The order under review is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferrot Ulysse v. State, 899 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…e, a reasonable officer would have probable cause to believe that the passenger had participated in the theft of the car, see § 812.014(2)(c)6, Fla. Stat. (2001),* or at the least, trespass in a conveyance. See id. § 810.08; see also State v. Black, 617 So. 2d 777, 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (defining elements of probable cause). Under either analysis, the officers were justifiably in hot pursuit of the passenger who ran into the defendant’s house. The defendant suggests that the hot pursuit exception to the war…
-
State v. Williams, 627 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…r investigatory purposes. State v. Abraham, 625 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (Officer had founded suspicion to stop defendant where he observed defendant in downtown shopping section late at night running with large shopping bags.); State v. Black, 617 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (Officer had probable cause to stop defendant where he was pushing shopping cart containing six rolls of new roofing paper along street at 6:50 a.m.); State v. Jenkins, 566 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (Officer had founded suspic…
-
State v. Mitchell, 722 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…bags), review denied, 639 So. 2d 975 (Fla.1994); State v. Williams, 627 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop defendant wheeling lawn mower through residential neighborhood at 11:00 p.m.); State v. Black, 617 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(officer had probable cause to stop [*909] defendant pushing shopping cart containing six rolls of new roofing paper down street at 6:50 a.m.); State v. Jenkins, 566 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)(officer had founded suspicion to st…
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
- Routly v. State, 440 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 1983)
- Russell v. State, 266 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Dobbert v. Strickland, 468 U.S. 1220 (U.S. 1984)
- Mahoney v. United States, 468 U.S. 1220 (U.S. 1984)
- Mizell v. Lawson Lamar, 432 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Railey Cross v. State, 432 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Russell v. State, 271 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1972)
- Sevin v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Transp. Ins. Co., 271 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 1972)