W.G., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
A thirteen-year-old female's adjudication for firearm possession was reversed because the police stop lacked reasonable suspicion—she was detained based solely on being female in the company of males described in a robbery BOLO—rendering any subsequent consent to search invalid.
A stop and detention lacking reasonable suspicion taints any subsequent consent to search, requiring suppression of evidence and reversal of adjudication.
[1] A detention lacking reasonable suspicion taints any subsequent consent to search, requiring suppression of evidence even if consent was ostensibly given.
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“Because there was obviously no founded or reasonable suspicion to justify stopping and detaining a person of a different gender than those described”
Court explaining why the initial detention was unlawful and violated the Fourth Amendment.
A thirteen-year-old female was stopped and detained by police apparently because she was in the company of males matching a BOLO description for a rob…
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 Tainted Consent cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, a thirteen-year-old female, was adjudicated delinquent for possession of a firearm discovered after she allegedly gave consent to a police search of her backpack. The search followed a detention apparently based solely on her being in the company of what were described in a BOLO initiated by the victim as seven males involved in a robbery.
Because there was obviously no founded or reasonable suspicion to justify stopping *270and detaining a person of a different gender than those described, see A.V. v. State, 81 So.3d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), the confinement was unlawful, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and, as such, irremediably tainted the purported consent even if ar-guendo it actually took place. See Hill v. State, 39 So.3d 437, 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“Because the officers’ contact with Hill amounted to a Fourth Amendment investigatory stop, and because the police did not have a well-founded, articulable suspicion that Hill was engaging in criminal activity, Hill’s consent to a search was tainted such that it was not voluntary. Therefore, we reverse the order dying Hill’s motion to suppress.”). Hence, the respondent’s motion to suppress the firearm should have been granted and the cause is remanded for dismissal of the petition.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Hill v. State, 39 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Hyman McWILLIE v. State, 81 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- A.V. v. State, 81 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)