JOHN CHAD PALMER, 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.
John Chad Palmer appeals convictions in two drug possession cases following denial of his motions to suppress evidence. The court reverses the suppression denial in one case due to insufficient probable cause for arrest, but affirms in the other case where the initial stop was lawful.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress in case 96-04726A because the initial stop for a stolen vehicle was lawful. The court reversed the denial of the motion to suppress in case 97-00999A because the limited information from the confidential informant did not give rise to sufficient probable cause to arrest Palmer on sight merely for driving a white Mitsubishi Eclipse at a location and time different from the planned transaction.
[1] A lawful pat-down search incident to a lawful stop may lead to the discovery of contraband if the officer feels an object that he believes to be illegal.
[2] Admitting an object is contraband during a lawful pat-down search can provide probable cause for an arrest.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Based upon the totality of the circumstances, the limited information the deputies received from the confidential informant did not give rise to sufficient probable cause to arrest Mr. Palmer, on sight, for driving a white Mitsubishi Eclipse.”
Establishes the standard and conclusion for case 97-00999A, holding that probable cause was lacking
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePalmer was stopped on September 27, 1996, while driving a stolen vehicle; during a lawful pat-down, officers discovered a cocaine pipe and methampheta…
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 Controlled Buy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Chad Palmer appeals his judgments and sentences in two cases following the denial of his dispositive motions to suppress evidence.
We reverse the trial court’s decision in case number 97-00999A and affirm the decision in case number 96-04726A. Mr. Palmer was stopped by a police officer on September 27, 1996, because he was driving a car that had been reported stolen. During a lawful pat-down, the officer felt an object that he believed to be a cocaine pipe. When he asked what it was, Mr. Palmer admitted that it was a cocaine pipe. During an additional search incident to arrest, the officer discovered a small bag of methamphetamine. Mr. Palmer was charged in case number 96-04726A with possession of the methamphetamine and paraphernalia.
We affirm the denial of the motion to suppress in this case without further discussion.
Sometime in February 1997, Polk County deputy sheriffs received information from a confidential informant that Mr. Palmer was selling methamphetamine from his white Mitsubishi Eclipse. The deputy who received the information could not remember the specific date the informant said he had observed this activity.
On February 18, 1997, the officers planned to confirm the confidential information by conducting a controlled buy of one ounce of methamphetamine from Mr. Palmer at a specific location with the assistance of the informant.
However, while five deputies were eating dinner at a restaurant about forty-five minutes before the planned transaction, they happened to observe Mr. Palmer driving a white Mitsubishi Eclipse in the parking lot. The restaurant was located at least five miles from the site of the controlled buy. Even though this was not the time or place of the planned transaction, the deputies abandoned their previous plan and immediately arrested Mr. Palmer. A search of the car resulted in the discovery of one gram of methamphetamine in a black case located within a gym bag in the front passenger seat. This led to a second charge of possession of methamphetamine in case number 97-00999A. Based upon the totality of the circumstances, the limited information the deputies received from the confidential informant did not give rise to sufficient probable cause to arrest Mr. Palmer, on sight, for driving a white Mitsubishi Eclipse. See Everette v. State, 736 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); McNeely v. State, 690 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress in case 97-00999A.
We reverse the judgment and sentence.
Mr. Palmer entered a written plea agreement in both cases recognizing that the points on the sentencing scoresheet should not exceed forty. The agreement called for a maximum sentence of nine months in jail and an unspecified term of probation. He received concurrent nine-month sentences in these two cases, suspended in exchange for three years’ probation. Our reversal reduces the score on his sentencing scoresheet for case number 96-04726A from 23.6 to 21.2. Accordingly, it appears that our reversal of case number 97-00999A should not impact on either the plea agreement or the sentence in case number 96-04726A. Thus, we affirm that judgment and sentence.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and GREEN and CASANUEVA, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. State, 787 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…would be carrying a tan zipper bag; and the suspect habitually walked very quickly). Without more evidence suggestive of criminal activity, the very generalized description in this case could apply to many innocent persons. See also Palmer v. State, 752 So. 2d 98, 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Miller v. State, 780 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The shortcomings of the tip in this case are further highlighted by comparison with State v. Butler, 655 So. 2d 1123 (Fla.1995), where, as here, the C.I. described the subj…
-
Highsmith v. State, 843 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…temporal proximity between the tip, the police response, and the sighting of the suspect is “of crucial significance” to the determination of reasonable suspicion. State v. Augustyn, 490 So. 2d 104, 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); see also Palmer v. State, 752 So. 2d 98, 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (finding a lack of probable cause when officers acted on “limited information” received from a confidential informant earlier in the month); Vandiver v. State, 779 So. 2d 289, 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (finding probable cause to…
Authorities Cited
- Sedrick Everette v. State, 736 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- McNEELY v. State, 690 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)