ARNOLD MARK BERKOWITZ, 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.
Arnold Berkowitz was convicted of drug possession after a traffic stop based on a BOLO description and subsequent vehicle search. The appellate court reversed, holding that the thirty-minute detention while awaiting a drug dog was unreasonable because the officer lacked particularized suspicion of criminal activity based solely on common household items observed in the vehicle.
The detention was improper and unreasonable. The officer could not articulate particularized suspicion of criminal activity based on the light bulbs, PVC pipe, and magazines with marijuana leaf depictions—all common items—and thus the 30-minute detention constituted an unreasonable intrusion on Berkowitz's freedom.
[1] A traffic stop is justified when an officer has a founded suspicion of criminal activity based on a BOLO that provides specific details about the vehicle and its occupant…
[2] An officer cannot extend a lawful traffic stop to investigate for drug activity based solely on common household or gardening items observed in the vehicle.
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“the officer could not articulate a particularized suspicion of criminal activity based upon the common gardening and household items he had observed”
Establishes that common household items alone cannot justify prolonged detention pending a canine search
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers received a BOLO for a green Ford Explorer with a Palm Beach County tag driven by a white male involved in an aggravated assault with a firear…
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 Particularized Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
BENNETT, ROBERT B., Jr., Associate Judge.
Arnold Mark Berkowitz has appealed from his convictions for possession of marijuana and narcotics paraphernalia. Mr. Berkowitz’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his car after he was stopped pursuant to a “be on the lookout” (BOLO) was denied; he pleaded nolo contendere, specifically reserving his right to appeal. We reverse because the officers continued to detain Mr. Berkowitz for an unreasonable length of time after the stop for the purpose of obtaining a canine unit to investigate his vehicle.
The arresting officer in this case had received a BOLO alerting her to be on the lookout for a green Ford Explorer with a Palm Beach County tag being driven by a white male south on Interstate 75. According to the dispatch, the driver had been involved in an aggravated assault with a firearm in the vicinity of Exit 21 in Lee County earlier that same evening, and the citizen involved had reported the incident. The officer eventually stopped the vehicle approximately forty to forty-five miles south of exit 21. The make, model, and color of the vehicle matched the description in the BOLO, as did the Palm Beach tag. A white male, Mr. Berkowitz, was driving the Explorer. Therefore, the officer had a founded suspicion to stop the vehicle. As in Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244, 249 (Fla.1995), the length of time and distance from the crime, the source of the BOLO, and the specificity of the description of the vehicle and its occupant support the stop.
Once Mr. Berkowitz had been detained, however, one of the officers looked in the back of his vehicle and noticed some light bulbs, some PVC pipe that could be used for irrigation, and some magazines depicting marijuana leaves. Upon seeing these items the officer suspected that the defendant might “possibly” be involved in marijuana cultivation, and he called for a canine unit to investigate further. Mr. Berkowitz was detained thirty minutes while the drug dog was brought to the scene. This detention was improper. The officer could not articulate a particularized suspicion of criminal activity based upon the common gardening and household items he had observed. Unlike the situation in the case of Cresswell v. State, 564 So. 2d 480 (Fla.1990), upon which the State relies, the officer possessed no more than a bare suspicion of criminal activity, and thus the thirty-minute detention was an unreasonable intrusion upon Mr. Berkow-itz’s freedom.
Because the trial judge should have granted the dispositive motion to suppress, the judgment and sentences are reversed, and this cause is remanded with instructions for the trial court to discharge the defendant.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. City OF Pompano Beach, 763 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…the specificity of the description of the vehicle’s occupants, all support the stop. There is also no evidence that the officer made the stop for any reason other than responding to the BOLO. Hunter, 660 So. 2d at 249; see also Berkowitz v. State, 737 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); State v. Vance, 692 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). We reverse the final summary judgment entered in favor of appellee and remand to the trial court with directions that appellants’ motion for summary judgment be granted as to t…
Authorities Cited
- Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1995)
- Cresswell v. State, 564 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1990)