THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDREW MITCHELL, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1998-12-02
No. 98-2059
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and SHEVIN and SORONDO, JJ.
722 So. 2d 907 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1998) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

Florida appeals a suppression order and challenges the lower court's finding that an investigatory stop of Mitchell was unconstitutional. The Third District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that the officer had founded suspicion to stop Mitchell based on his suspicious behavior and sudden acquisition of merchandise in a high-crime area.


Holding

The stop was constitutionally justified. The reappearance of the defendant with three shovels, with no rational explanation for their acquisition, amply justified a reasonable belief that he had stolen them, thus providing founded suspicion for a Terry stop.


Headnotes

[1] A founded suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory stop does not require the absence of any innocent explanation for observed circumstances, but rather depends on…

[2] Circumstances such as being in a high crime area, peering into parked cars, and reappearing with newly acquired merchandise can establish founded suspicion for an investi…

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

Key Quotes

“the existence of the founded suspicion necessary to support a Terry stop like the one involved here does not ten[d] on whether an innocent explanation can possibly be conjured up from what are obviously incriminating circumstances[, but] rather on what a realistic view of the facts justifies or requires”

Establishes the legal standard for founded suspicion in Terry stops—objective circumstances rather than possible innocent explanations

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Officer Fuentes observed Mitchell in a high-crime Miami area wearing a garbage bag in heavy rain, peering into parked car windows and repeatedly looki…

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.


Opinion of the Court
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The state appeals from an order suppressing Mitchell’s confession to the theft (from the open bed of a pick-up truck) of three shovels a police officer saw him carrying in downtown Miami. The lower court ruled that the investigatory stop which produced the statement was constitutionally unjustified. We completely disagree and reverse.

The state’s brief succinctly and accurately characterizes the evidence below as follows:

Officer Fuentes observed the Defendant, in a high crime area, wearing a garbage bag in the pouring rain, peering into the windows of numerous parked cars. (T. 4-5). No other persons were present in the area. (T. 15). Officer Fuentes explained that as the Defendant cupped his hands against the windows of the car, (T. 4), he repeatedly looked in both directions down the street. (T. 16). Within ten minutes, the Defendant reappeared with newly acquired merchandise on his back, in a high crime area known for buying and selling stolen goods. (T. 7,11,17).

Applying the rule that, like probable cause, the existence of the founded suspicion necessary to support a Terry stop like the one involved here does not ten

on whether an innocent explanation can possibly be conjured up from what are obviously incriminating eircumstances[, but] rather on what a realistic view of the facts justifies or requires,

see State v. Maya, 529 So. 2d 1282, 1287 n. 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), we readily conclude that the reappearance of the defendant with the three shovels, with no other rational explanation of where he might have gotten them,1 amply justified a reasonable belief that (as the defendant almost immediately acknowledged) he had stolen them. See State v. Abraham, 625 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(officer had founded suspicion to stop defendant in downtown shopping section late at night running with large shopping bags), review denied, 639 So. 2d 975 (Fla.1994); State v. Williams, 627 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop defendant wheeling lawn mower through residential neighborhood at 11:00 p.m.); State v. Black, 617 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(officer had probable cause to stop defendant pushing shopping cart containing six rolls of new roofing paper down street at 6:50 a.m.); State v. Jenkins, 566 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)(officer had founded suspicion to stop defendant riding bicycle with box of overflowing goods in early morning hours); State v. Jones, 454 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)(officers lawfully arrested defendant pushing grocery cart containing several cartons in early morning in front of autoparts store). Thus the stop and the ensuing confession were perfectly valid.

Reversed.

. At oral argument, Mitchell’s lawyer proffered, as what she stated was an equally plausible explanation of her client’s possession of the shovels, the possibility that, during the ten minute interval he was out of the officer’s view, an unknown person materialized on the scene with three shovels and hired Mitchell to transport them.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • R.A. v. State, 725 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
    …700 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); State v. Gonzalez, 682 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), review denied, 689 So. 2d 1069 (Fla.1997); State v. Novak, 502 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 511 So. 2d 299 (Fla.1987); see also State v. Mitchell, 722 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (determination of “founded suspicion” turns on realistic view of actual situation). It is therefore all the more obviously impossible to agree with the court’s conclusion, in reversing the presumptively correct determination of th…
  • Crocton v. State, 724 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
    …PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991), Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1993), State v. Roux, 702 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), and State v. Mitchell, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2637, 722 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). w SHARP; THOMPSON and ANTOON, concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw