PHILLIP OBAS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2006-07-12
No. 4D05-1088
WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
935 So. 2d 38 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2006) Positive Treatment
Cited by 12 cases

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.

Synopsis

Phillip Obas was convicted of tampering with evidence after he dropped cocaine and a container on the ground while being stopped on his bicycle. The appellate court reversed, holding that merely dropping evidence on the ground where it can be easily retrieved does not constitute tampering with evidence under Florida law.


Holding

The court held that merely dropping evidence on the ground where it can be easily found and retrieved does not constitute tampering with evidence. The court reversed the conviction, finding the evidence insufficient to support a tampering conviction under these circumstances.


Headnotes

[1] Tampering with evidence requires a knowing act to alter, destroy, conceal, or remove a thing with the purpose to impair its availability in a pending or imminent proceedi…

[2] Tossing evidence away in the presence of law enforcement may constitute tampering or concealing evidence, depending on the circumstances.

Previewing 2 of 6 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

Key Quotes

“to the extent it can be read to mean that tossing evidence away in the presence of a law enforcement officer does not, as a matter of law, constitute a violation of the statute. Depending upon the circumstances, such an act could amount to tampering or concealing evidence.”

Supreme Court clarification that tossing evidence is not per se lawful but must be evaluated based on circumstances

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

While officers were about to stop defendant for riding a bicycle without a light, they observed him manipulate something with his hands and saw rock-l…

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.


Opinion of the Court
KLEIN, J.

KLEIN, J.

Defendant was convicted of tampering with evidence because, as an officer was about to stop defendant, who was on a bicycle, defendant opened a container, dropped cocaine rocks on the ground, and tossed the container five feet. The court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal.

One officer testified that, after seeing defendant interact with another man and manipulate something with his hands, he decided to stop defendant for not having a light on his bicycle. A second officer who was with the first officer, while they were driving parallel with defendant, saw defendant use his left hand to “tumble out” rock like substances. After they ordered defendant to stop, the officer saw defendant toss a pill container a distance of approximately five feet. After retrieving the pill container, the officer found six pieces of cocaine rock and the cap to the container between the grass and the sidewalk, where the officer had seen appellant drop them while riding his bicycle.

Tampering with evidence is defined in section 918.13(1), Florida Statutes (2004) as follows: No person, knowing that a criminal trial or proceeding or an investigation by a duly constituted prosecuting authority, law enforcement agency, grand jury or legislative committee of this state is pending or is about to be instituted, shall:

(a) Alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing with the purpose to impair its verity or availability in such proceeding or investigation;

In Boice v. State, 560 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), it was held that tossing away a small bag of cocaine, while in the presence of arresting officers at the scene of a sale, did not violate the tampering statute, but was merely abandonment of evidence. Boice, however, was criticized by our supreme court in State v. Jennings, 666 So. 2d 131 (Fla.1995), in which the defendant swallowed cocaine rocks which were never recovered. In holding that swallowing could constitute tampering, the supreme court explained that it disagreed with Boice:

to the extent it can be read to mean that tossing evidence away in the presence of a law enforcement officer does not, as a matter of law, constitute a violation of the statute. Depending upon the circumstances, such an act could amount to tampering or concealing evidence. An affirmative act of throwing evidence away constitutes more than mere abandonment. We conclude that the trial court’s ruling is rooted in an overly broad reading of Boice and find that swallowing an object clearly constitutes altering, destroying, concealing, or removing a “thing” within the meaning of section 918.13.

Jennings, 666 So. 2d at 133.

Shortly after our supreme court decided Jennings, the state appealed a trial court order dismissing a tampering charge in State v. Harper, 800 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), in which the trial court had followed Boice. In Harper the defendant, during a traffic stop, instructed a passenger in his vehicle to throw drugs and paraphernalia out the window. The opinion does not state whether the evidence was recovered, but merely reverses because the trial court had relied on Boice, and Boice had been criticized in Jennings.

In Jennings, as the quote indicates, our supreme court did not hold that tossing evidence is always tampering. It simply held that the Boice court was wrong to the extent it held that tossing evidence away cannot constitute tampering as a matter of law. Each case, accordingly, must be decided on its facts.

We are unable, on these facts, to accept the state’s argument that defendant violated the statute. If defendant had dropped or thrown the items so that they could not have been retrieved, it would be another matter, like swallowing. In this case, however, where he merely dropped the cocaine rocks and tossed the container on the ground, and both were easily found, the evidence was insufficient. Otherwise a tampering conviction could be obtained whenever a suspect merely drops drugs on the ground.

Reversed.

WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Beazley v. State, 148 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
    …law enforcement, even if rendering the evidence irrecoverable, does not constitute tampering without evidence of a specific intent to tamper with or conceal the evidence. See Evans v. State, 997 So. 2d 1281, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Obas v. State, 935 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Without condoning defense counsel’s failure to move for a judgment of acquittal, we are unwilling under these facts to hold that ineffective assistance is apparent on the face of the record on direct appeal. Intent is notorious…
  • Costanzo v. State, 152 So. 3d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
    …ampering is committed only when the defendant takes some action that is designed to actually alter or destroy the evidence rather than just removing it from his or her person.” E.I. v. State, 25 So. 3d 625, 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). In Obas v. State, 935 So. 2d 38, 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), for example, the defendant emptied a pill container of crack cocaine rocks as police approached. He tossed the container five feet away after police ordered him to stop. Id. This Court re [*739] versed the defendant’s convic…
  • E.I. v. State, 25 So. 3d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
    …evidence); McKenzie v. State, 632 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (noting in passing that flushing drugs down a toilet could constitute tampering with evidence). In contrast, in Evans v. State, 997 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), and Obas v. State, 935 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), the defendants threw items onto the ground as officers approached for a stop. In Obas, the Fourth District noted that Jennings had not overruled Boice but had simply held that Boice was wrong “to the extent it held that tossing…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw