STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
KWMANE MONTRELL WINTER, 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 appealed a trial court's grant of a motion to suppress evidence obtained when police stopped Kwmane Winter as he fled on his bicycle. The appellate court affirmed the suppression ruling, holding that the State failed to establish that the stop location was a high-crime area, which is required under Illinois v. Wardlow to justify a stop based solely on flight from police.
The trial court did not err. The State's testimony regarding the high-crime nature of the area was too vague and lacked sufficient specificity regarding the number, types, and locations of crimes to establish that the stop was justified under Illinois v. Wardlow.
[1] A police officer's stop of an individual is justified when the individual flees from the officer, but only if the flight occurs in a high-crime area.
[2] Vague testimony regarding the number or types of crimes in an area is insufficient to establish that the area is a high-crime area for the purpose of justifying a police…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000), justifies such a stop only when the fleeing occurs in a high-crime area.”
Establishes the legal standard for when flight from police alone can justify a stop—it requires a high-crime area.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKwmane Winter rode past an unmarked police vehicle on his bicycle. When an officer called out "excuse me, sir, can I talk to you?", Winter jumped 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 High Crime Area cases and more on FLexlaw
Kwmane Winter rode past a parked, unmarked police vehicle on his bicycle and upon hearing “excuse me, sir, can I talk to you?” jumped off his bicycle and took off running. After a chase, Winter was caught and charged with armed resisting an officer with violence, possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, carrying a concealed firearm, and battery on a law enforcement officer. He moved to suppress the evidence, alleging that he was stopped without a reasonable suspicion and the search was conducted without probable cause. The court granted the motion and the State appeals.
There was a disagreement as to whether Winter knew that his pursuers were police officers but that issue is rendered moot by the court’s finding that the chase was not shown to have been in a high-crime area. The trial judge found, and the State agreed, that Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000), justifies such a stop only when the fleeing occurs in a high-crime area. See also C.E.L. v. State, 24 So.3d 1181 (Fla.2009). The issue before us is whether the trial court erred in finding that the State failed to prove that the area in which this flight occurred was a high-crime area.
The testimony in this regard was that the area was a high-crime area “based on the multiple, multiple calls for service for crime and violent crime in that area” and *730that the officers were in the area at the time of the incident because of the “recent spike in the report of violent crimes in that area.” There were no specifics given as to the number or types of crimes or where, within this quite large area designated as a high-crime area, the crimes occurred. While “empirical studies or statistical data” may not be required. See D.R. v. State, 941 So.2d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), vague testimony such as “there being multiple narcotic complaints that go on out there” would not establish a high-crime area. The testimony failed to convince the trial judge that the stop was justified and the record does not justify substituting our own fact-finding for that of the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000)
- C.E.L. v. State, 24 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. 2009)
- Fam. Nurturing Ctr. OF Fla., Inc. v. Fam. Support Servs. of N. Fla., Inc., 941 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)