C.K., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 facts presented did not establish a founded suspicion necessary for a Terry stop, rendering the subsequent search and seizure unconstitutional.
A minor was stopped and searched near a junior high school based on his presence in an area with prior disturbances. A firearm was discovered during t…
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 Founded Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The bare facts that C.K. was one of a group of young persons in front of a convenience store near a junior high school, in an area which was the site of prior disturbances, fall utterly short of providing the “founded suspicion” that he was engaged in improper activity which is necessary to support even a Terry stop. See Cunningham v. State, 591 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Jenkins v. State, 524 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). It follows that there was no constitutional basis for an officer to order C.K. “against the wall,” or for the subsequent pat down of the bulge at his waistband1 and the resulting discovery of the firearm which formed the basis of the charges against him. See C.E.P. v. State, 704 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), and cases cited; Hamilton v. State, 612 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). On this ground alone,2 the gun should have been suppressed and the charges dismissed. The adjudication under review is reversed for this to be done after remand.
Reversed and remanded.
. The officer noticed the bulge only after the search began. Even if, however, it had been seen prior to the stop it would not have provided a "founded suspicion.” See Sholtz v. State, 649 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Hamilton v. State, 552 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
. We need not consider the appellant’s claims of other infirmities in the search, such as the argument that even if a Terry stop were justified, the pat down was not. See Smith v. State, 592 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cunningham v. State, 591 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Jenkins v. State, 524 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Hamilton v. State, 612 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Sholtz v. State, 649 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Smith v. State, 592 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Hamilton v. State, 552 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- C.E.P. v. State, 704 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)