DAMIAN JAMAL HUNT, 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.
Damian Hunt was convicted of cocaine possession after police discovered drugs during a pat-down search conducted during a traffic stop for riding a bicycle without headlights. The court reversed Hunt's conviction because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that Hunt was armed, making the pat-down search unconstitutional.
The trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress because the pat-down search was unconstitutional. The record did not support a reasonable belief that Hunt was armed, and protective pat-down searches are only permissible when an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the subject is an armed threat.
[1] A pat-down search is constitutionally impermissible if performed routinely or solely for officer safety.
[2] A protective pat-down search in connection with an investigatory stop is permissible only if the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject is an armed threat.
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“a protective pat-down search in connection with an investigatory stop is only permissive if the officer has probable cause to believe that the subject is an armed threat”
Establishes the legal standard for when pat-down searches are constitutional during investigatory stops
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputy Lubinski stopped Hunt on August 15, 1995, for riding a bicycle without headlights. Lubinski intended to issue a warning and obtained Hunt's ide…
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 Terry Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
Damian Hunt challenges his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine. He argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because the cocaine was recovered during an unlawful pat-down search. We reverse the trial court’s denial of the motion because the circumstances surrounding the search did not give rise to a reasonable belief that Hunt was armed.
The facts of the case are essentially undisputed. Hunt was stopped by Hillsborough County Sheriff Deputy Daniel Lubinski on the evening of August 15, 1995, when Lubin-ski observed him riding on a bicycle without headlights. According to Lubinski, the Sher iff s Department was “dealing with enforcing bicycle headlight laws in the area.” Lubinski waved appellant over to the roadway edge and advised him of the reason for the stop. Intending to issue a warning, Lubinski obtained appellant’s identification and returned to his cruiser to retrieve his warning book.
As Lubinski began writing the warning, he noticed Hunt step off the bicycle behind him and walk around the immediate area. This caused Lubinski’s attention to be divided, so he approached Hunt and asked if he had any weapons in his possession. Lubinski testified that he could not recall Hunt’s response, but he then proceeded to conduct a pat-down search. During the pat-down, Lubinski felt what he believed to be a small edged weapon or short razor blade in Hunt’s left pocket. At that point, Lubinski obtained Hunt’s consent to look in his pocket, and he retrieved a plastic ziplock baggie containing two rocks of crack cocaine.
While the initial stop in this case was based on a traffic violation, and therefore clearly justified, the record does not support a reasonable suspicion for the subsequent pat-down search. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Deputy Lubinski testified that he searched Hunt so that he could continue to write the warning “without having to worry” about whether appellant was armed. On cross-examination, when asked whether Hunt did anything that lead him to believe that he was armed, Lubinski answered, “No.” Lubinski’s testimony leads us to conclude that the pat-down search was performed routinely, for safety purposes. However, a protective pat-down search in connection with an investigatory stop is only permissive if the officer has probable cause to believe that the subject is an armed threat. § 901.151(5), Fla. Stat. (1995); State v. Webb, 398 So. 2d 820 (Fla.1981); Premo v. State, 610 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Establishing the predicate for a valid stop did not, in and of itself, justify the pat-down search in this ease. Pat-down searches performed routinely or for safety purposes only are constitutionally impermissible. Harris v. State, 574 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Based on the record before us, we conclude that the pat-down search was unsupported by a reasonable belief that Hunt was armed. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Caldwell v. State, 41 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 2010)…rson during the search. See Hidalgo v. State, 959 So. 2d 353 (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…
-
Lorenza Coleman v. State, 723 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…indication of criminal activity. See also Cubby v. State, 707 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that pat down was unlawful in that arresting officer had no reason to believe that defendant was involved in any criminal activity); Hunt v. State, 700 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that pat down pursuant to traffic stop was impermissible where circumstances surrounding search did not give rise to reasonable belief that defendant was armed). The facts in this case are very similar to the facts in E.H…
-
L.D. v. State, 770 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…bserved nothing that created an articulable and reasonable suspicion that Smith was armed. The officer noticed no bulges in Smith’s clothing, nor did Smith act furtively or suspiciously or say anything threatening. See id. at 572. In Hunt v. State, 700 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), the defendant was stopped by a deputy sheriff after being observed riding a bicycle without headlights. Intending to issue a warning, the deputy obtained Hunt’s identification and returned to his cruiser. As he wrote the warning,…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Webb, 398 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1981)
- Harris v. State, 574 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Nate M. Oliver & Sunrise Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Kolody, 610 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Premo v. State, 610 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)