LEROY ARMSTRONG, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed conviction for drug possession because the officer's demand that Armstrong open his hand constituted an unlawful seizure without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
A police officer's demand that a person open their hand during a street encounter constitutes a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and absent such justification, evidence obtained from the seizure must be suppressed.
[1] A police officer's demand that a person open their hand during a street encounter constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, requiring reasonable suspicion or prob…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“would conclude that he or she [was] not free to end the encounter and depart”
Court's analysis of whether Armstrong was seized, citing Gipson v. State and Popple v. State for the standard that a reasonable person must feel free to leave.
Armstrong and a friend were walking down the street when a Fort Myers police officer stopped his vehicle, exited, and asked Armstrong to approach. The…
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 Show Of Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Leroy Armstrong was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. He entered a plea of no contest to the offenses, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress. We agree that the trial court erred in denying the motion and reverse.
Armstrong and a friend were walking down the street when a Fort Myers police officer passed by in his marked patrol car. The officer stopped his vehicle and exited. The officer asked Armstrong to come to him. Armstrong complied. As he approached, the officer noticed that one of Armstrong’s hands “was kind of cupped closed.” The officer did not believe Armstrong had a weapon but suspected that he had narcotics in his hand. The officer asked Armstrong to open his hand. The arrest report prepared by the officer as well as the testimony given by the officer and by Armstrong lead this court to the conclusion that the statement was a demand. Under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in Armstrong’s position “would conclude that he or she [was] not free to end the encounter and depart.” See Gipson v. State, 667 So. 2d 418, 419 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (quoting Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185, 188 (Fla.1993)). In the present case, Armstrong submitted to the police officer’s show of authority and a seizure occurred. See id.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress and remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to vacate Armstrong’s judgments and sentences and to discharge him for these convictions.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
WHATLEY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bautista v. State, 902 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…he discovery of the fraudulent identification. We conclude that when the officers asked Bautista to remove his wallet, the statement was a demand that changed the nature of the encounter from a consensual one to a detention. See Armstrong v. State, 880 So. 2d 1283, 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (concluding that when an officer asked Armstrong to come to him and to open his hand, the officer’s statement was a demand resulting in a seizure because a reasonable person in Armstrong’s position would conclude that he or…
Authorities Cited
- Tedd J. Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1993)
- Gipson v. State, 667 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)