STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS HINES, 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 State appealed a trial court's suppression order in a battery and drug possession case, arguing the court had improperly dismissed charges rather than merely suppressing evidence. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the suppression order, clarifying that the trial court had suppressed evidence seized from an unlawful detention lacking articulable suspicion, not dismissed the charges.
The court affirmed the trial court's suppression order. The evidence was properly suppressed because it was seized following an unlawful detention where police lacked articulable suspicion. The order was a suppression order, not a dismissal, and the trial court's credibility determination regarding the state's witness was not disturbed on appeal.
[1] A trial court's determination of witness credibility is within the realm of the trier of fact and will not be disturbed on appeal.
[2] An appellate court will affirm a trial court's suppression order when the order is clearly a suppression order, not a dismissal order, and the state has not challenged th…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the basis for suppression: unlawful detention lacking articulable suspicion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHines was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting an officer with violence, and possession of cannabis. He filed a pretrial motio…
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 Articulable Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING/CLARIFICATION
ANTOON, Judge.
The state has filed a motion for rehearing/elarifieation of our opinion dated March 7,1997. We grant the motion, withdraw the March 7 opinion, and issue this opinion in its stead. In this regard, we have now received a completed record on appeal and, as a result, we are able to properly review the trial court’s suppression order. Upon review, we affirm.
The defendant was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer,1 resisting an officer with violence,2 and possession of cannabis.3 The defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence which had been seized at the time of his arrest. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an oral ruling granting the motion and suppressing “everything that occurred after [the] pretextual stop ...” The trial court then signed the court minutes, noting that the “defense motion [is] granted.” The state appealed this order, arguing that the trial court had improperly dismissed the charges against the defendant. Upon initial review, it was unclear to this court exactly what evidence the trial court intended to suppress. Accordingly, we entered a sua sponte order directing the trial court to supplement the record with a written order describing the nature of its ruling.
The trial court thereafter promptly responded by entering a written order explaining that it had suppressed the “cannabis ... and other physical evidence taken from the person of [the defendant]” because the evidence had been seized following an unlawful detention. The trial court concluded that the detention was unlawful because the police lacked any articulable suspicion to justify the detention.
On appeal, the state has not challenged the suppression order. Instead, as noted above, the state argues only that the trial court erred in dismissing the charges against the defendant. We affirm the trial court’s order because it is now clear that the order on appeal is a suppression, not a dismissal, order. Additionally, we note that, in reaching the conclusion that suppression was warranted in this case, the trial court must not have believed the testimony of the state’s witness regarding the detention. In ruling, the court referred to the testimony as “disingenuous.” This determination concerning the credibility of the witness is within the realm of the trier of fact and will not be disturbed on appeal. See State v. Polak, 598 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, C. J., and THOMPSON, J., concur. . § 784.07, Fla. Stat. (1993).
. § 843.01, Fla. Stat. (1993).
. § 893.13, Fla. Stat. (1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Summers (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2016)…in Chambers, at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, on this _____ day of __________________, 2017. /S/___________________________ A. JAMES CRANER Presiding Circuit Judge O’KANE and THORPE, J.J., concur. 3 Appellee relies in part on State v. Hines, 692 So. 2d 280, 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) to support the proposition that an appellate court can read between the lines to assess the trial court’s credibility findings where findings were not explicitly made in an order. Appellee quotes the Fifth District’s ruling…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Polak, 598 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)