LORENZA COLEMAN, 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.
Lorenza Coleman appeals the denial of his motion to suppress cocaine seized during a traffic stop for a cracked windshield. The court reverses, holding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat-down search of Coleman's person.
The pat-down search was impermissible and the seizure of cocaine must be suppressed. An officer may not conduct a pat-down search during a traffic stop without reasonable suspicion that the defendant is armed or without any indication of criminal activity, regardless of nervousness or hand placement.
[1] A pat-down search during a traffic stop is impermissible where there is no probable cause to believe the individual is armed with a dangerous weapon and no suspicion or i…
[2] An officer's belief that a bulge in a suspect's pocket is contraband, based on its feel, is insufficient to justify a seizure absent reasonable suspicion that the bulge i…
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“an officer's pat down search pursuant to a traffic stop was impermissible where the appellant kept reaching into his pocket but there was no probable cause that established that the appellant was armed with a dangerous weapon and there was no suspicion or indication of criminal activity”
Establishes the legal standard for permissible pat-down searches during traffic stops, requiring either probable cause defendant is armed or suspicion of criminal activity
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn officer stopped Coleman in a well-lit parking lot for a cracked windshield. A background check showed Coleman had a valid license and no outstandin…
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 Reasonable Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lorenza Coleman timely appeals the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress cocaine seized from him pursuant to a traffic stop. We reverse.
An officer of the Naples Police Department conducted a traffic stop based on a cracked windshield in a well-lit parking lot of an automobile dealership. A background check revealed that Coleman had a valid driver’s license and no outstanding warrants. The officer noticed that Coleman was acting nervous and holding his hand over his pants pocket. The officer did not see any weapons in plain view, nor did he notice any bulge in Coleman’s pockets or shirt that might have indicated a weapon. Because Coleman was holding his hand over his pocket, the officer conducted a pat down of Coleman’s exterior clothing. The officer noticed a “bulge” in Coleman’s pocket like a “kernel of corn.” The “bulge” was a quarter-inch sized square and the consistency was soft and yielding to pressure. Based on his training and experience the officer believed that the “bulge” was consistent with that of crack cocaine. The officer seized the item in Coleman’s pocket which field tested positive for crack cocaine.
The trial court denied Coleman’s motion to suppress.
On appeal, Coleman concedes that the stop was proper.
However, he challenges the seizure of cocaine from his person after the pat down. Coleman relies on E.H. v. State, 593 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), which is dispositive. The court, in E.H., did not decide the case on the plain touch doctrine. Rather, in E.H., the court held that an officer’s pat down search pursuant to a traffic stop was impermissible where the appellant kept reaching into his pocket but there was no probable cause that established that the appellant was armed with a dangerous weapon and there was no suspicion or 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. The officer stopped Coleman pursuant to a traffic violation. He did not observe any criminal activity and there was no bulge in Coleman’s clothing that could indicate that he was carrying a weapon.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Coleman’s motion to suppress.
Reversed.
WHATLEY, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., and QUINCE, PEGGY A., Associate Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Tristan Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…d 570, 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“The vehicle in which Mr. Smith was riding was stopped for having a cracked windshield, a violation of Florida law.... Because the windshield was cracked, the vehicle’s stop was justified.”); see also Coleman v. State, 723 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (noting that appellant conceded that traffic stop for cracked windshield was valid); K.G.M. v. State, 816 So. 2d 748, 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (recognizing that initial stop for operating vehicle with cracked windshield was not dis…
-
RAY v. State, 849 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…noticed no bulge in the defendant’s clothing that would indicate that he was carrying a weapon and there was no indication or suspicion that the defendant had been engaged in criminal activity at the time of the stop. Similarly, in Coleman v. State, 723 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), another traffic stop case, the court held that defendant’s nervousness and the fact that he was holding his hand over his pants pocket was not sufficient to justify a weapons pat-down. The court in Coleman noted that the officer…
-
State v. Barnes, 979 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…2003). However, an officer does not have reasonable suspicion that a defendant is armed merely because, following a non-criminal traffic stop, the defendant appears nervous and keeps his hands in or near his pockets. Id.; see also Coleman v. State, 723 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); E.H. v. State, 593 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). “The mere thrusting of one’s hand in one’s pocket in front of a police officer does not constitute conduct which supports & founded suspicion that an individual is armed and dang…
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
- E.H. v. State, 593 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Hunt v. State, 700 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Cubby v. State, 707 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)