IN THE INTEREST OF J.L., A CHILD
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.
A minor appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a stop and pat-down search that revealed a concealed firearm. The court reversed, holding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the initial stop and subsequent search.
The court held that the facts did not justify the stop and search. An officer may conduct a brief investigatory stop only when an individual's behavior creates reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and may conduct a pat-down only when there is reasonable belief the suspect may be armed. The officer's articulation of facts did not satisfy these requirements.
[1] An investigatory stop and pat-down search is not justified by an individual's mere presence in an area where a crime was recently reported.
[2] An officer may briefly detain and question an individual when the individual's behavior creates a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“An officer may briefly detain and question an individual when that individual's behavior creates a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”
Establishes the legal standard for investigatory stops under Terry v. Ohio and Florida Statute section 901.151.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 9, 1992, J.L. was charged with carrying a concealed firearm. On an April night, a police officer observed J.L. walking at a normal pace toward…
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 Order Of Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
J.L., a minor, appeals from an order denying his motion to suppress evidence and order of commitment. We reverse.
On June 9, 1992, appellant was charged under a petition for delinquency with carrying a concealed firearm. On August 19, 1992, appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence and statements, wherein he alleged an illegal stop and search pursuant to section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1991), and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On September 3, 1992, a hearing was held on appellant’s motion which resulted in its denial.
The only witness at the hearing was the police officer who arrested appellant. He testified that he arrested appellant after he observed appellant walking at a normal pace toward the area where a burglary had recently been reported. Appellant wore a large coat or jacket, which the officer thought was odd, because it was a warm April night. The officer asked appellant to come over to him. According to the officer, appellant answered his questions truthfully and provided a reasonable explanation of where he was coming from and where he was going. Appellant’s hands were out of his pocket, the officer did not notice any bulge anywhere on appellant’s clothing and appellant obeyed the officer’s every command. It was after appellant answered the officer’s questions that the officer conducted a pat-down search, where he noticed what seemed to be a pistol grip in the area of appellant’s waistband. The officer’s further search revealed a pistol in the waistband, whereupon the officer took appellant into custody for carrying a concealed weapon.
The facts in the present record do not justify a stop and search. An officer may briefly detain and question an individual when that individual’s behavior creates a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1991). The officer may further conduct a pat-down of the suspect’s outer clothing only where the officer has a reasonable belief that the suspect may be armed. Reynolds v. State, 592 So. 2d 1082 (Fla.1992). It is well settled that stopping an individual simply for being present in a particular location, such as a high crime area, is not permitted. See 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.H. v. State, 693 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ea.” There was no evidence linking the defendant to the apartment in question. The court held that these facts did not amount to a reasonable suspicion. See also, Schaub v. State, 576 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); In the Interest of J.L., a Child, 623 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In the present case there can be no doubt that the officers had enough evidence to conclude that the automobile in question was stolen. We cannot conclude, however, that they had a reasonable suspicion to detain the [*91] Appel…
-
Elbert Brown v. State, 687 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…is not permitted to detain an individual without a founded suspicion of criminal activity. Papalas v. State, 645 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Poole v. State, 639 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. den., 649 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1994); In Interest of J.L., 623 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Hamilton v. State, 612 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Beasley v. State, 604 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Hill v. State, 561 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). A founded suspicion is one based upon facts and circumstances observe…
Authorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Reynolds v. State, 592 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1992)
- Emelio Hamilton v. State, 597 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Kell v. State, 559 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)