A.C., A CHILD, 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.
A minor was stopped by police officers who observed him placing something in his mouth in a high-crime area. The court held that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain the appellant, and that their physical blocking of his path constituted an unlawful seizure, requiring suppression of the cocaine evidence.
The court held that the act of putting something in one's mouth does not provide well-founded suspicion for detention. The officers' belief that appellant had cocaine was a mere hunch insufficient to justify a stop. The encounter was transformed into an unlawful seizure when the officers ran in front of appellant and blocked his path while directing him to spit out whatever was in his mouth.
[1] An officer's belief that a suspect has drugs in their mouth, without more, does not constitute a well-founded suspicion for detention.
[2] An encounter is transformed into a seizure when officers block a suspect's path and instruct them to spit out an object from their mouth.
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“the act of putting something in one's mouth does not provide a well-founded suspicion for a detention”
Establishes the legal standard that mere act of placing something in one's mouth is insufficient basis for police stop
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers McWade and Bevan were patrolling a high drug area when they encountered appellant A.C. When Bevan made eye contact with the appellant, the ap…
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 Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant argues, and we agree, that the court should have granted his motion to suppress.
Officers McWade and Bevan were separately patrolling a high drug area when they encountered appellant. Appellant was talking to McWade when Bevan made eye contact with him. Appellant then quickly turned his back, crouched down and put something in his mouth. Based on this behavior, McWade and Bevan followed appellant, calling out to him to stop. When appellant ignored their requests, they ran around to block his path, and told him not to swallow what he had in his mouth because if it was cocaine, he could die. Appellant then told them that if he spit it out, he would go to jail. When he did then spit it out, as Bevan and McWade had suspected, it was determined to be cocaine.
As this court has held in Williams v. State, 564 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) and M.J.S. v. State, 620 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), the act of putting something in one’s mouth does not provide a well-founded suspicion for a detention.. Bevan s belief that appellant had cocaine in his mouth was not sufficient; it amounted to a mere hunch. These facts are similar to those in M.J.S. where the officer, after having observed the defendant furtively put something in his mouth, placed his hand on the defendant’s shoulder to tell him that if he had just put drugs in his mouth he needed to spit them out because they would make him ill. We held there that once the officer put his hand on the defendant’s shoulder, the encounter was transformed into a seizure. The encounter here was similarly transformed into a seizure when the officers ran in front of appellant and blocked his path while telling him that he should spit out whatever was in his mouth.
We reverse the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doney v. State, 648 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…al activity, where officer approached the defendant who was standing on the- porch of a house under surveillance for drug activity, when the defendant, startled by the officer’s appearance attempted to conceal something in his mouth); A.C. v. State, 630 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (police officers’ belief that they had seen a juvenile put something in his mouth was not sufficient to justify a detention). Further, even if the officer had founded suspicion to detain Doney, the search would have exceeded the s…
-
Coney v. State, 820 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…State, 581 So. 2d 967, 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). In Cummo, as here, the officer suspected that the individual had drugs in his mouth, but the officer acknowledged that the object could also have been a lifesaver or a mint. Id. See also A.C. v. State, 630 So. 2d 1219, 1220 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Had the officers observed marijuana in Coney’s mouth, they would have had probable cause to arrest him and to conduct a search, including of his mouth, incident to the arrest. See Drayton v. State, 601 So. 2d 1248, 1249 (F…
-
State v. James, 693 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…the object in James’ mouth. The case law dictates that this court answer that question in the negative. Under similar facts the appellate court has determined that the officer’s belief that the object was contraband is a “mere hunch”, A.C. v. State, 630 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), and does “not give the police officer a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the appellant was involved in criminal activity”, M.J.S. v. State, 620 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). I do not believe these decision…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- M.J.S. v. State, 620 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Anthanase Williams v. State, 564 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)