NATHANIEL SHOLTZ, 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.
Nathaniel Sholtz challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from an illegal search. The court held that Deputy Sheriff Kane's patdown search of Sholtz was invalid because it was not preceded by a lawful investigatory stop, requiring reversal and discharge.
The court held that the initial consensual encounter was transformed into an invalid stop when Deputy Kane decided to conduct the patdown without establishing a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity. Because the stop was unlawful, Deputy Kane had no justification to conduct the patdown search, and the evidence obtained must be suppressed.
[1] A consensual encounter transforms into a stop when a law enforcement officer decides to conduct a patdown.
[2] A stop is not valid when the facts do not establish a well-founded suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity.
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“Although the meeting began as a consensual encounter, it was transformed into a stop when Deputy Kane decided to conduct a patdown.”
Establishes that the deputy's decision to frisk Sholtz converted the encounter from consensual to a seizure requiring justification.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputy Kane was dispatched to a high-crime area on a 911 call with no information about the complaint or persons involved. Upon arriving at a shopping…
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 Frisk cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Nathaniel Sholtz pled no contest to possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia, specifically reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Because the evidence was obtained during an invalid search, we reverse.
At the suppression hearing, Deputy Sheriff Kane testified that he was dispatched on a 911 call about 5:00 a.m. to a high crime area. The caller had hung up and the dispatcher did not provide information to Deputy Kane regarding either the nature of the complaint or a description of persons engaged in illegal activity. As Deputy Kane pulled into a shopping center in his marked police car, he saw two men standing near a pay phone. He parked and got out of the car. One man left and Nathaniel Sholtz, the second man, approached the deputy. When Deputy Kane noticed a bulge in Sholtz’ front pocket, he informed Sholtz that he wanted to conduct a patdown and they walked to the rear of the cruiser. As the deputy began the patdown, Sholtz pulled a homemade pipe with cocaine residue out of another pocket. The bulge Deputy Kane first noticed was wadded up money.
Although the meeting began as a consensual encounter, it was transformed into a stop when Deputy Kane decided to conduct a patdown. See Smith v. State, 592 So. 2d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (“[W]hen the officer required appellant to place his hands on the hood of the ear, the consensual encounter was transformed into a stop.”). Because the facts did not establish a well-founded suspicion that Sholtz was involved in criminal activity, the stop was not valid and Deputy Kane had no justification to conduct a patdown. See, e.g., Hamilton v. State, 612 So. 2d 716, 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (“The lawfulness of a patdown search for weapons presupposes that a stop is valid and that the officer then forms the necessary suspicion that a suspect is armed and dangerous.”); Smith v. State, 592 So. 2d 1206, 1208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (“The fact that one of the officers testified that they were going to search the appellant for weapons because they were afraid for their safety ... did not make the appellant’s detention lawful.”).
The trial court erred by failing to suppress the evidence because it resulted from an invalid stop and frisk. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to discharge Sholtz.
PARKER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caldwell v. State, 41 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 2010)…3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (objecting to drugs discovered during frisk); D.L.J., 932 So. 2d at 1133 (concealed firearm); Hines v. State, 737 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (knife); Hunt v. State, 700 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (drugs); Sholtz v. State, 649 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (drugs); Beasley v. State, 604 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (drugs); Harris v. State, 574 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (evidence of burglary and grand theft). None of these cases involved a situation where, as here, a defendant…
-
Johnson v. State, 785 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…citizen encounter.” Lang v. State, 671 So. 2d 292, 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see Sander, 595 So. 2d at 1100. Finally, some cases suggest that a pat down transforms a consensual encounter “into a ‘stop’ requiring closer scrutiny.” See Sholtz v. State, 649 So. 2d 283, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Hamilton v. State, 612 So. 2d 716, 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Such cases do not clarify the legal theory supporting a pat down during a police-citizen contact that begins as a consensual encounter. In Brown v. State, 714 So. 2…
-
Garrett Jones v. State, 658 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…trial court is permitted to make this credibility determination, and appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court clearly erred in finding the search was a consensual encounter. Appellant’s reliance upon the decision of Sholtz v. State, 649 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), is misplaced. In that case, the deputy “informed” the defendant that he wanted to conduct a pat down, rather than requesting and receiving permission to search, as occurred in this ease. In addition, in Sholtz the officer retriev…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 592 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Hamilton v. State, 612 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Smith v. State, 592 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)