ALVIN L. LEWIS, 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.
Appellant Lewis challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (cocaine) obtained during an arrest following an anonymous tip. The court reverses, holding that the anonymous tip, even when corroborated as to identity and appearance, does not justify a search without independent evidence of criminal activity.
The court held that corroboration of the anonymous tip's details regarding identity, dress, location, and appearance is insufficient to support a search. Independent evidence of criminal activity apart from the verified anonymous tip is required. Appellant's act of fleeing alone, without evidence of concern for officer safety or criminal activity, does not provide the necessary independent basis for the search.
[1] An anonymous tip alone, even if corroborated as to the suspect's description and location, is insufficient to justify a search without independent evidence of criminal ac…
[2] Corroboration of details from an anonymous tip, such as clothing, vehicle, and presence at a location, does not provide the necessary independent evidence of criminal act…
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“It is not sufficient merely to corroborate the anonymous information concerning the identity, dress, description, location or even future activity of the suspect who is the subject of the anonymous information. In addition to independent evidence verifying that type of information, there must also be independent evidence of criminal activity on the part of the suspect.”
Establishes the standard that corroboration of descriptive details alone is insufficient; independent evidence of criminal activity is required.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA sheriff's deputy received an anonymous tip describing a 'younger black male' named Al who would be at a specific location wearing a purple shirt and…
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 Reasonable Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant argues that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We agree and reverse.
Sheriffs Deputy Veacey received an anonymous telephone tip that a “younger black male,” whose name was Al, would be at a certain location wearing a purple shirt and blue jeans. He would also be driving a yellow Maverick. When Veacey arrived at the location, he saw appellant wearing the described clothing. He also saw the yellow vehicle. As Veacey approached appellant, appellant dropped a quart of beer and fled. Veacey gave chase, then stopped and allowed another officer to chase and apprehend appellant. Appellant was carrying a black case that was opened and found to contain cocaine. Before trial, appellant filed a motion to suppress, which was denied.
We conclude that the motion should have been granted on the basis of Cunningham v. State, 591 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) and Powell v. State, 592 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In Cunningham, we held:
It is not sufficient merely to corroborate the anonymous information concerning the identity, dress, description, location or even future activity of the suspect who is the subject of the anonymous information. In addition to independent evidence verifying that type of information, there must also be independent evidence of criminal activity on the part of the suspect.... There must be independent evidence of criminal activity apart from the otherwise verified anonymous tip to support a search of the described suspect.... Neither did the fact that “Wally” began to flee from the scene give the officers, without more, authority to search appellant who had done nothing to create in the minds of the officers concern for their safety or evidence that appellant was engaged in criminal activity.
591 So. 2d at 1061.
Since the officers here did not have any independent evidence of criminal activity apart from the tip, the subsequent arrest and search were invalid, and the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress. Although appellant raises two other issues on appeal, we decline to reach them in view of our reversal on the first issue. We reverse and remand for appropriate proceedings.
FRANK, C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Miranda, 701 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…2 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). . In view of the foregoing, we need not consider the details of the trial court's analysis of the law governing anonymous tips. We note, however, that the trial court relied heavily on Lewis v. State, 645 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), which (in turn relying on earlier Second District cases) appears to stale that an anonymous tip can never provide a founded suspicion to make an investigatory stop unless the officer makes an independent observation of criminal a…
-
Ingram v. State, 674 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…t down search. However, it is our conclusion that the officers here did not have the required probable cause to conduct the pat down search with the result that the cocaine was improperly seized and should have been suppressed. Under Lewis v. State, 645 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) and Powell v. State, 592 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), while verification of location or described dress will support a stop, a search following an anonymous tip will not be valid unless “there [is] independent evidence of crimin…
Authorities Cited
- Cunningham v. State, 591 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Powell v. State, 592 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)