WILLIE BURNETT, 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.
Willie Burnett appealed his conviction for cocaine possession, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The court reversed, finding that the officer lacked founded suspicion to stop Burnett's vehicle based solely on observations of Burnett visiting a known crack house without witnessing any actual drug transaction or exchange of money.
The court held that Officer Adams lacked founded suspicion to support the stop. Observations of visiting a known crack house, without actually seeing a drug transaction or exchange of cash or packages consistent with drug transactions, are insufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion. Therefore, the stop was invalid, the search was illegal, and the cocaine evidence must be suppressed.
[1] An investigatory stop is unlawful if the detaining officer lacks a reasonable, well-founded, particularized suspicion of criminal activity.
[2] A "hand-to-hand transaction" observed from a distance, without more, does not automatically establish reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“In order to justify an investigatory stop, a police officer must have a founded suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.”
Establishes the legal standard required for a lawful investigatory stop.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Adams was conducting surveillance of a house known as a "crack house" where cocaine possession arrests had been made. He observed Burnett park…
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 Founded Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Willie Burnett appeals his judgment and sentence entered following his no contest plea to possession of cocaine, specifically challenging the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress the cocaine found in Burnett’s vehicle. We conclude that the motion should have been granted and reverse.
At the motion to suppress hearing, Officer Adams testified that he was conducting sur veillance of a house known to be a “crack house.” His unit had made a number of cocaine possession arrests out of that particular house. Historically, police officers had observed individuals make contact with the people at the house, go to the back of the house, and then leave. Police officers then followed these individuals and subsequently stopped them. When stopped by the officers the individuals admitted that they had bought cocaine at the house.
Officer Adams testified that on the day of Burnett’s arrest he saw Burnett’s ear park in front of this particular house. Burnett got out and spoke with a man outside of the house. Both men then walked out of Officer Adams’ view for a few minutes. Shortly thereafter, Burnett returned to the car and appeared to be holding something in his hand which he did not appear to be holding when he arrived. Burnett then drove off. Officer Adams testified that he could not hear what Burnett said to the man at the house, saw nothing exchanged between the two men, saw no money, and did not see what was in Burnett’s hand. Based on his observations, Officer Adams notified Officers Cooper and Trabilla to stop Burnett. Neither Officer Cooper nor Trabilla saw what Officer Adams had witnessed previously.
Officers Cooper and Trabilla subsequently stopped Burnett’s vehicle. Officer Trabilla searched Burnett’s vehicle and found fifteen pieces of crack cocaine underneath a hat on the front seat. Burnett did not consent to the search.
In order to justify an investigatory stop, a police officer must have a founded suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. § 901.151. Fla.Stat. (1991); Randall v. State, 600 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). “A founded suspicion is one which has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer when those circumstances are interpreted in light of the officer’s knowledge.” Smith v. State, 592 So. 2d 1206, 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Observations such as those of Officer Adams in this case, without his actually seeing a drag transaction or exchange of cash or packages consistent with drag transactions, are not sufficient to constitute a reasonable suspicion to support a stop. See State v. Paul, 638 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). See also M.J.S. v. State, 624 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Absent founded suspicion to support a stop, the search is invalid, and the evidence obtained pursuant to the invalid search must be suppressed. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress and remand this case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and LAZZARA, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saadi v. State, 658 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…d up to the garage; both defendants were stopped when they left the residence). While this case bears some similarities to Tinson v. State, 650 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), Powell v. State, 649 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Burnett v. State, 644 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), the instant case is factually distinguishable. In both Timón and Powell the defendants entered the drug houses and left after a few minutes. The officers were unable to observe any activity inside the residences. There were no mo…1 / 2
-
Phillips v. State, 781 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…mit a crime.” Thomasset v. State, 761 So. 2d 383, 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also § 901.151, Fla.Stat. (1997); Terry; Saturnino-Boudet v. State, 682 So. 2d 188, 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), review dismissed, 689 So. 2d 1071 (Fla.1997); Burnett v. State, 644 So. 2d 152, 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Popple, 626 So. 2d at 186. If a police officer does not have the necessary founded suspicion to support the investigatory stop, the evidence obtained during the invalid search must be suppressed. Burnett v. State, 644 So. 2d…
-
Beckham v. State, 934 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…643, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“A bare suspicion or mere ‘hunch’ that criminal activity may be occurring is not sufficient.”). The officers saw no exchange of money or drugs and saw nothing passing from one individual to another. See Burnett v. State, 644 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The officer trainee acknowledged that he had stated in his deposition testimony that he observed the individuals huddled together and that it looked like a drug transaction, but he gave no other information as to why it looked li…
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
- State v. Paul, 638 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Smith v. State, 592 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- M.J.S. v. State, 624 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Randall v. State, 600 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)