STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
SAMUEL L. GRANT, 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 court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe the pipe was used to smoke crack, justifying the stop.
An officer observed the defendant in a narcotics area at night, holding a lighter and a glass pipe. The defendant dropped the pipe upon seeing the off…
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 Suppression Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress, and the state appeals, arguing that the officer, who saw the defendant drop a glass pipe, had reasonable suspicion to believe the pipe was used to smoke crack. We reverse.
The officer testified that he was walking in a narcotics area, at night, near an abandoned building. He observed the defendant behind a wall, with a lighter in one hand and a glass pipe in the other. When the defendant saw the officer, who had turned on his flashlight, he dropped the pipe. After a backup arrived, the officer retrieved the glass pipe, which contained cocaine. He testified at the suppression hearing that he had seen hundreds of crack pipes and that he recognized this as such as soon as he observed the defendant.
We agree with the state that, applying the law to these facts, the officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was committing a crime. § 901.151, Fla. Stat. (2001); C.A.M. v. State, 819 So. 2d 807, 808-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(determination of reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances and is reviewed de novo). We therefore reverse.
SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. T.M., 248 So. 3d 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…and discarded an object that both officers immediately recognized as a cocaine pipe. Id. We held that the officers developed reasonable suspicion once they recognized the pipe. Id. at 675. We also reversed a suppression order in State v. Grant, 845 So. 2d 984, 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), because the officer immediately recognized a crack pipe discarded by the defendant. Based on Hodari D., Mosley, and Grant, the trial court erred in suppressing the plastic bag as the fruit of an unlawful seizure. Once appe…
Authorities Cited
- C.A.M. v. State, 819 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)