ALONZO L. JOHNSON, 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.
Johnson appeals the denial of his motion to suppress cocaine rocks seized during a police encounter. The court must determine whether Johnson dropped the drugs before or after the police attempted to stop him, as this distinction determines whether the seizure was lawful under federal and state law.
The court affirmed the denial of Johnson's motion to suppress, finding that the evidence supported a 'drop then stop' scenario where Johnson dropped the cocaine before the stop became effective. Because no unlawful seizure occurred, the seized evidence was admissible.
[1] If the police do not have a lawful reason to stop a person, evidence dropped by that person after being asked to stop but before being seized is subject to suppression.
[2] An unlawful seizure does not occur when a person drops an object and then stops, even if the drop follows an order to stop.
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“If the police do not have a lawful reason to stop a person — and the state concedes they did not in this case — the person who stops and then drops is entitled to have the evidence which was dropped suppressed.”
Establishes the legal rule that evidence obtained after an unlawful stop must be suppressed, applying precedent from Spann v. State and other cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn officer in a marked police vehicle and uniform observed Johnson in a group and approached. When the officer exited the vehicle, Johnson began walki…
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 Voluntary Abandonment cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
Defendant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress sixteen cocaine rocks on the ground that the rocks were obtained from an illegal stop. The issue is whether this is a “stop then drop” ease or a “drop then stop” ease. State v. Fortunato, 581 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
The only evidence at the motion to suppress hearing was the testimony of the arresting officer:
Q. You were in a marked police vehicle and in full police uniform; correct? A. That’s correct. Q. You saw the defendant, to your own words, attempt to fade away? A. That’s correct. Q. You saw that the defendant began to act furtively? A. That’s correct.
Q. You did not observe any narcotic transaction occur; correct, officer?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Mr. Johnson then began to walk away from you at a brisk pace?
A. That’s correct.
Q. You did not observe Mr. Johnson commit any sort of crime; correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And Mr. Johnson was approximately 10 feet ahead of you when he dropped something from his right hand to the ground?
A. That’s correct.
Q. You then asked Mr. Johnson to stop?
A. I had asked him to stop before that while he was walking away.
Q. Did he make any sort of sign or any sort of acknowledgment to that command?
A. He continued to walk away. He knew I was behind him and this was my estimation that that’s why he was walking away.
Q.
However, he did stop when you asked him to stop after you had observed the object strike the ground?
A. I was speaking to him — normally, I would just be saying something to the effect of, “I just want to talk to you. Come here. Stop. Hold on. I’m a police officer. I just want to talk to you.” While that was taking place, he walked up to the porch area, threw something down and immediately turned around so that if— Q. The fact, though, is that you had not observed him commit any sort of crime?
A. That’s true. On cross-examination he testified: Q. Officer, do you recall at what point you first asked the defendant to stop?
A. As soon as we got out of the police vehicle different officers went up to different people in the group. Mr. Johnson began to walk away so I began following him right away, asking him to stop.
Q. Were you in uniform?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And upon asking him to stop, how did he respond to you?
A. He continued walking away briskly. And before I had actually started talking to him, he was watching me starting back again away with his eyes on me and then he turned to walk away. That heightened my curiosity.
Q. Did he, after turning and walking away from you, attempt to make any verbal communication with you?
A. He did not.
Q. When did you next ask him to stop?
A. I continued speaking with him until he walked up, he turned onto the porch, walked up onto the porch. I saw him throw something down from his right hand. I was directly in line with him and as soon as he threw that down, he turned right away and approached me and said something to the effect of, “What, officer?” If the police do not have a lawful reason to stop a person — and the state concedes they did not in this case — the person who stops and then drops is entitled to have the evidence which was dropped suppressed. Spann v. State, 529 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) approved, Hollinger v. State, 620 So. 2d 1242 (Fla.1993) and Perez v. State, 620 So. 2d 1256 (Fla.1993). See also, In Interest of J.K, 581 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
In California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991), the Court held that an unlawful seizure has not occurred where the person does not stop when requested to do so. An unlawful seizure only takes place if the person either willingly obeys or is physically forced to obey the police request, i.e. there is no unlawful seizure when the person “drops then stops,” even where the drop occurs after an order to stop.
The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress here, finding a “voluntary abandonment,” but observing that it was a very close case. We agree it is close; however, implicit in his order is a finding of fact that the drop came before the stop, and we must interpret the evidence and inferences to be drawn therefrom in favor of affirming. Owen v. State, 560 So. 2d 207 (Fla.1990) cert. denied, 498 U.S. 855, 111 S.Ct. 152, 112 L.Ed.2d 118 (1990).
Affirmed.
GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Woods, 680 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ndgun. Immediately after dropping the items, appel-lee said something to Kinsey to the effect of “what’s going on.” Both parties characterize this case as involving the distinction between “stop then drop” or “drop then stop.” See Johnson v. State, 640 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In Johnson, this court noted that in California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991), the Court held that an unlawful seizure (stop) has not occurred where the person does not stop when requested to do…
-
State v. A.M., 788 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…Bartee, 623 So. 2d 458 (Fla.1993) (chase and order for defendant to stop did not constitute a seizure, therefore cocaine abandoned during defendant’s flight was not fruit of the poisonous tree and should not have been suppressed); Johnson v. State, 640 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(abandonment of drugs was voluntary where officer asked defendant to stop, followed defendant, but never touched him, and defendant dropped drugs before complying with officer’s request to stop). Therefore, the order below suppres…
-
State v. Mitchel Conde, 924 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…the drop. Because the stop did not occur until the police caught up with defendant, after he dropped the cocaine, the seizure of the cocaine was lawful. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991); Johnson v. State, 640 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Reversed. WARNER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991)
- Dykstra-Gulick v. Gulick, 620 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 1993)
- Owen v. State, 560 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1990)
- Hollinger v. State, 620 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1993)
- Spann v. State, 529 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Moeller v. United States, 498 U.S. 855 (U.S. 1990)
- Cook v. McCullough, 498 U.S. 855 (U.S. 1990)
- Stokes v. State, 581 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- In the Interest of J.K., 581 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)