JIMMY LONG, 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.
The court held that the stop of the defendant's vehicle was unlawful because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
[1] An investigatory stop requires a well-founded or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
[2] Mere association with a known drug trafficker, without more, does not justify an investigatory 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 intelligenceDeputies observed a known drug trafficker acting suspiciously and then entering a vehicle driven by the defendant. The officers stopped the defendant'…
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
FRANK, Chief Judge.
Jimmy Long, reserving his right to appeal, pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine. He contends the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress the cocaine seized following a stop of his vehicle. We agree.
A drug trafficker, well known to the authorities, attracted Pinellas County Sheriffs Deputies to the parking lot of a Home Depot. The police had earlier observed the dealer acting suspiciously. Upon arriving at the parking lot the officers watched the trafficker park his car and walk towards the Home Depot while “scanning the whole parking lot.” When an RX-7 pulled up, the trafficker entered it. The RX-7 circled the parking lot and its driver, subsequently identified as Long, stopped behind the trafficker’s vehicle. When the trafficker exited Long’s RX-7, the officers noticed “an out of the ordinary big bulge” in his pants pocket. Convinced that a narcotics transaction had occurred, the officers followed Long out of the parking lot and stopped him. Incident to the detention, the officers searched Long’s car and found two baggies of powdered cocaine.
The events leading to the stop did not give rise to a well founded or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. None of the officers who testified at the suppression hearing observed an exchange of money or drugs, or noted anything other than the “bulge” in the trafficker’s pocket. No officer could articulate a reasonable basis, independent of Long’s acquaintance with a known narcotics merchant, for the conclusion that Long had just committed a crime. Long’s presence in the company of an identified drug trafficker would likely inspire speculation as to their mutual objectives, but mere association with a recognized dealer, without more, will not justify an investigatory stop. See Shackelford v. State, 579 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Mosley v. State, 519 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The officers’ interception of Long’s vehicle without a reasonable basis taints all that occurred thereafter. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyd Franklin Aycock v. State, 744 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…Mr. Bunk’s supplier for the expected sale in the parking lot. Nevertheless, they had seen nothing more than Mr. Bunk enter the car for a short time. This was not enough information to support a Terry stop of Mr. Aycoek’s vehicle. See Long v. State, 647 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Martin v. State, 521 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to grant the motion to suppress. WHATLEY and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. . See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.…
Authorities Cited
- Mosley v. State, 519 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Shackelford v. State, 579 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)