THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
A.M., A JUVENILE, 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 State appeals a suppression order in a juvenile drug possession case. The trial court suppressed marijuana evidence, finding the juvenile was unlawfully seized when the officer ordered him to stop. The appellate court reversed, holding that no seizure occurred because the juvenile discarded the drugs before submitting to the officer's authority.
The appellate court held that no unlawful seizure occurred because a seizure requires either physical force by the officer or submission to the officer's show of authority. Since A.M. discarded the drugs without submitting to the officer's request to stop and before any physical contact, the evidence was not fruit of an unlawful seizure and should not have been suppressed.
[1] A seizure of a person under the Fourth Amendment requires either physical force by an officer or submission to a show of authority.
[2] Abandonment of contraband during flight from a police officer does not constitute an unlawful seizure if the individual has not yet submitted to the officer's authority.
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“To constitute "seizure of the person" under the Fourth Amendment, there must be either an application of physical force by the officer against the individual or a showing that the individual submitted to the officer's show of authority.”
Establishes the legal test for what constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer on routine patrol in a high crime area noticed A.M., a juvenile matching the description of someone involved in a domestic dispute, s…
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 Abandonment Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida appeals an order granting the respondent’s motion to suppress physical evidence. We reverse.
Respondent A.M., a juvenile (“respondent”), was arrested for possession of cannabis after he attempted to discard a baggie of marijuana while walking away from a police officer. The incident in question arose when the officer, while on routine patrol following a domestic dispute call, noticed the respondent standing on a street corner in a high crime area. The respondent matched the description of the individual involved in the domestic dispute and was with another male who had been arrested on several occasions for possession and sale of narcotics.
When the officer stopped to investigate, the respondent began to walk away. The officer then instructed him to stop, but the respondent said “no, I ain’t gonna stop.” Before the officer was able to grab the respondent, the respondent pulled his hand out of his pocket and threw a small baggie containing marijuana on the opposite side of a fence.
Prior to trial, the respondent filed a motion to suppress, arguing that his seizure and detention were not based on a reasonable articulable suspicion of crime, or probable cause. The trial court agreed, finding the respondent was illegally seized without probable cause when the police officer asked him to stop walking away. Thus, the trial court reasoned that the respondent’s subsequent abandonment of the narcotics was the product of an illegal stop and granted the motion to suppress citing State v. Anderson, 591 So. 2d 611 (Fla.1992).
We find the trial court erred in granting the motion because the respondent was not “seized” prior to throwing the baggie. To constitute “seizure of the person” under the Fourth Amendment, there must be either an application of physical force by the officer against the individual or a showing that the individual submitted to the officer’s show of authority. See California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991); Perez v. State, 620 So. 2d 1256 (Fla.1993). There is “no unlawful seizure if the individual ‘drops then stops,’ even where the drop occurs after an order to stop.” State v. Woods, 680 So. 2d 630, 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Here, the respondent discarded the drugs without having acquiesced to the officer’s request to stop and before the officer ever touched him. Accordingly, the drugs could not have been the fruit of an unlawful seizure and the motion to suppress should have been denied. See State v. Bartee, 623 So. 2d 458 (Fla.1993) (chase and order for defendant to stop did not constitute a seizure, therefore cocaine abandoned during defendant’s flight was not fruit of the poisonous tree and should not have been suppressed); Johnson v. State, 640 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(abandonment of drugs was voluntary where officer asked defendant to stop, followed defendant, but never touched him, and defendant dropped drugs before complying with officer’s request to stop). Therefore, the order below suppressing the evidence must be reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Huffman v. State, 937 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…leged “illegal seizure,” specifically, one piece of “crack” cocaine and an alleged “pipe used for smoking crack.” In support of his motion, Huffman cited, as pertinent to the issues, Coney v. State, 820 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); State v. A.M., 788 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Abdullah v. State, 745 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); and Burnette v. State, 658 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The sole witness at the suppression hearing was Lt. Jimmy Anderson, a member of the Chief-land Police Department. F…
-
Williams v. State, 127 So. 3d 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…curred before defendant voluntarily abandoned cocaine rocks; he dropped the drugs after the officer asked him to stop but before he willfully-obeyed, and the officer did not physically force the defendant to obey his request to stop); State v. A.M., 788 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding that juvenile was not seized by police officer where juvenile had refused to stop and began to walk away after officer tried to question him). Viewing the testimony and all inferences in the light most favorable to sust…
Authorities Cited
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991)
- Dykstra-Gulick v. Gulick, 620 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Anderson, 591 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Bartee, 623 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1993)
- Johnson v. State, 640 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- State v. Woods, 680 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)