THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ELMER ABRAHAM, 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 appealed the suppression of evidence obtained from a stop of defendant Abraham, who was observed running with shopping bags late at night in a high-crime downtown area. The court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop based on the totality of circumstances and reversed the suppression order.
The court held that under the circumstances presented, the officer was justified in stopping the defendant for investigatory purposes. The combination of running with multiple shopping bags late at night in a closed business district, while repeatedly looking back, constituted reasonable suspicion that criminal activity might be afoot.
[1] A police officer may stop a person for investigatory purposes when the person is observed running with shopping bags at night in a high-crime area, looking back over thei…
[2] Circumstances suggesting property may have been unlawfully obtained can justify a Terry stop when there is reason to believe criminal activity is afoot.
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 typical Terry stop occurs when a [*987] police officer sees a person on the street carrying property under circumstances which suggest that the property might have been unlawfully obtained.”
Establishes the legal standard for reasonable investigatory stops based on suspicious possession of property
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA plainclothed Miami police officer with nine years of robbery investigation experience observed the defendant running for several city blocks at 9:00…
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 Investigatory Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
FERGUSON, Judge.
A plainclothed City of Miami police officer, with nine years experience in investigating robberies, observed the defendant running for several city blocks carrying three large shopping bags and continuously looking back over his shoulder. The time was 9:00 p.m. when stores in the immediate area had closed, and the location was a high-crime downtown shopping section of the city.
The single issue we address is whether there were sufficient facts to justify a stop based on a reasonable belief that the defendant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense. § 901.-151(2), Florida Statutes (1991). We hold that under the circumstances, the officer was justified in stopping the defendant for investigatory purposes. See generally Wayne R. La-Fave, 3 Search & Seizure § 9.3(c), at 437 (1987) (The typical Terry stop occurs when a police officer sees a person on the street carrying property under circumstances which suggest that the property might have been unlawfully obtained. Because the property provides the focus for questioning, a stop for investigation is appropriate when there is reason to believe that “criminal activity may be afoot.”); see also Commonwealth v. Wascom, 286 Pa.Super. 157, 344 A. 2d 630 (1975) (officer would have been derelict in his duties if he had failed to stop two men who were walking down the street with arms full of commercial merchandise at 12:30 in the morning); Piantadosi v. State, 311 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (Terry stop was reasonable where officer saw defendant run from apartment building with suitcases at 5:00 a.m., dropping clothes as he ran); compare Lewis v. State, 382 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (officers did not have reasonable grounds to believe defendant committed a crime based on the mere fact that he was walking down the street in early morning hours carrying two paper bags). Accordingly, we reverse the order suppressing evidence.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Williams, 627 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…ither committed, was committing or was about to commit a criminal offense. Section 901.151(2), Fla.Stat. (1991). We hold that, under the circumstances, the officer was justified in stopping the defendant for 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 ca…
-
State v. Mitchell, 722 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ce of the defendant with the three shovels, with no other rational explanation of where he might have gotten them,1 amply justified a reasonable belief that (as the defendant almost immediately acknowledged) he had stolen them. See State v. Abraham, 625 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(officer had founded suspicion to stop defendant in downtown shopping section late at night running with large shopping bags), review denied, 639 So. 2d 975 (Fla.1994); State v. Williams, 627 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(officer ha…
Authorities Cited
- Piantadosi v. State, 311 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Lewis v. State, 382 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)