A.N.H., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
A juvenile appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of marijuana discovered during a search by school officials. The court held that bloodshot eyes and unusual behavior alone do not constitute reasonable suspicion to justify a warrantless search of a student, and reversed the trial court's order.
The court held that bloodshot eyes and abnormal behavior alone do not constitute reasonable suspicion to justify a search of a student. The State failed to meet its burden of establishing specific and articulable facts that would reasonably warrant the intrusion, as these observations are consistent with innocent circumstances such as a common cold.
[1] A school official must have reasonable grounds to suspect that a search will reveal evidence of a student violating the law or school rules.
[2] Specific and articulable facts, along with rational inferences, are required to justify a search of a student.
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“A search of a student requires the school official to have a reasonable ground to suspect that the search will result in evidence that the student has violated the law or school rules.”
Establishes the legal standard for school searches under New Jersey v. T.L.O.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA school counselor was contacted by a teacher about concerns regarding A.N.H. The counselor observed that A.N.H. had bloodshot eyes and was not acting…
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 Specific And Articulable Facts cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, J.
A.N.H. appeals an order in which the trial court withheld his adjudication of delinquency and placed him on community control. A.N.H. argues that his motion to suppress was improperly denied because there was no reasonable suspicion to support the search of his person. We agree and reverse the order which denied the motion to suppress.
A.N.H.’s school counselor, Susan Hanson, received a telephone call from A.N.H.’s teacher in which the teacher expressed concern over A.N.H. Hanson then located A.N.H. and accompanied him to the teacher’s classroom where a conversation took place between Hanson, A.N.H., and the teacher. Hanson later recalled that A.N.H. was not “acting himself,” had bloodshot eyes, and that “something wasn’t right” with A.N.H. Hanson requested that A.N.H. empty his front pant pockets, and discovered marijuana in A.N.H.’s lower-side pant pocket.
The trial court subsequently denied A.N.H.’s motion to suppress finding that A.N.H.’s bloodshot eyes gave rise to a reasonable suspicion to conduct the search for marijuana. A.N.H. pled nolo contende-re to a first-degree misdemeanor count of marijuana possession in exchange for a sentence which required him to attend drug counseling and perform community service hours. We disagree with the trial court that appellee State of Florida met its burden to establish the reasonableness of the search of A.N.H. A search of a student requires the school official to have a reasonable ground to suspect that the search will result in evidence that the student has violated the law or school rules. See New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 342, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985). The State is thus required to elicit specific and articulable facts which, when taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
In this case, the factors which the State elicited to support the search of A.N.H. were that he had bloodshot eyes and that he was not himself. These facts alone, however, can result from a variety of non-criminal circumstances, including the appearance and behavior associated with a common cold. The Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that a seizure is not justified when factual circumstances can describe a large category of presumably innocent people. Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 441, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980). A.N.H.’s physical state was consistent with innocence, and thus could not give rise to reasonable grounds to suspect that he was involved in some criminal activity.
We therefore reverse and remand with instructions to vacate AN.H.’s plea.
FLETCHER, J., concurs.
LEVY, Judge (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A.H. v. State, 846 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)….O., 469 U.S. 825, 341-342, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985). The state is required to elicit specific and articulable facts which, when taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion. A.N.H. v. State, 832 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). In the instant case, there were no facts which, combined with rational inferences, would warrant the intrusion. The sum and substance of the testimony was…
-
C.G. v. State, 941 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…the State is obligated to elicit specific and articulable facts that, when taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion. See A.H. v. State, 846 So. 2d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); A.N.H. v. State, 832 So. 2d 170, 171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). In the case before us, there were no facts elicited that, when combined with rational inferences therefrom, would have given the school official reasonable grounds to conclude that C.G. had violated either the law, or the s…
-
D.G. v. State, 961 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…hat report had proven incorrect. While this fact may well have been permissibly considered as one of the “mix” of factors which go into the determination of founded suspicion, see S.V.J. v. State, 891 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); A.N.H. v. State, 832 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); T.J. v. State, 538 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); State v. D.T.W., 425 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); A.B. v. State, 440 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); see also State v. Thomas, 960 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), it surely doe…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1985)
- Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1980)