CARLTON EALY, 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.
The court reversed a conviction where the trial court denied a motion to suppress because the search incident to an investigatory stop exceeded constitutional bounds by seeking to discover hidden contraband rather than merely determining if the suspect was armed.
A search incident to an investigatory stop that goes beyond a pat-down to determine whether a suspect is armed, without extraordinary circumstances justifying the intrusion, violates both federal and state law and is per se unreasonable.
[1] A search incident to an investigatory stop must be limited to a pat-down to determine whether a suspect is armed and exceeds constitutional bounds when conducted to disco…
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“the officer was more determined to search appellant's person to discover what had been hidden rather than to determine whether appellant was armed, which is the singular justification for the search incident to an investigatory stop”
Court's analysis of the officer's improper motivation in conducting the search
Following a no-contest plea reserving the right to appeal, appellant challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained f…
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 Terry Frisk cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Following his no-contest plea reserving the right to appeal a dispositive ruling, appellant seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We are unable to distinguish the operative factors in this case from those present in Harvey v. State, 703 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), in which this court reversed a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress:
It is clear to us that the arresting officer in the case at bar was more determined to search appellant’s person to discover what had been hidden rather than to determine whether appellant was armed, which is the singular justification for the search incident to an investigatory stop. Additionally, in the case before us, the officer was required to conduct a reasonable, carefully limited search required by Terry [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968),] and the Florida Stop and Frisk Law. This he did not do and there were simply no extraordinary circumstances necessitating the officer’s invasive search as opposed to a pat-down and, in our view, the officer can in no way be considered to have done that which was “minimally necessary” under the circumstances to determine whether the appellant was armed. Thus, we hold that the search of appellant clearly exceeded the bounds of both Florida law and federal law and was perse unreasonable.
Id. at 1115.
Because the motion to suppress should have been granted, we REVERSE the conviction and sentence.
ERVIN, KAHN and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Harvey v. State, 703 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)