STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROY A. GARCIA, 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 State appealed the trial court's order suppressing evidence from a warrantless stop of Garcia, who fled when police arrived to arrest another individual in a high-crime area. The appellate court reversed, holding that Garcia's unprovoked headlong flight provided reasonable suspicion justifying the stop and probable cause for arrest based on obstructing an officer.
The police had valid justification to stop Garcia based on his unprovoked, headlong flight in a high-crime area, which provided reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Additionally, police had probable cause to arrest Garcia for obstructing or resisting an officer without violence based on his continued flight despite the officers' lawful command to stop.
[1] Headlong flight in a high-crime area, in response to police presence, can provide a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justifying a stop.
[2] A person's continued flight in knowing defiance of an officer's lawful order to stop can constitute the offense of resisting or obstructing an officer without violence.
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“the police were justified in stopping Garcia because his unprovoked, headlong flight in a high-crime area provided a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity”
Establishes the legal basis for the stop based on flight in 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 intelligencePolice were executing a probable cause pick-up order for a man named Levens at an address in a high-crime area. Before arriving, a deputy observed Lev…
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 Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
The State seeks review of the order dismissing an affidavit of violation of probation which was entered after the trial court granted Roy A. Garcia’s motion to suppress. The State argues that the court erred in granting the motion to suppress because Garcia’s act of engaging in headlong flight in a high-crime area gave the police a valid basis for stopping him. We agree and reverse.
The evidence established that the police went to an address in a high-crime area to pick up a man named Levens based on a probable cause pick-up order. Before the Sheriffs van arrived at the address, a deputy conducted surveillance there. He observed Levens and Garcia approach a vehicle and exchange indiscernible objects in a hand-to-hand transaction. The Sheriffs van arrived at the address shortly thereafter. At this time, Levens was standing in the driveway talking to Garcia.
The police exited the van wearing “Sheriff’ vests and yelled “Sheriffs Office.” Le-vens immediately surrendered, but Garcia turned tail and ran. The officers gave chase, yelling for- Garcia to stop, but he kept “running just as fast as he could.” As he was running, Garcia discarded an object. Garcia was tackled, and another object fell from his pocket during the struggle. Police thereafter located several baggies containing cocaine in the immediate area.
In granting the motion to suppress, the trial court concluded that the police did not have a valid basis for stopping Garcia. However, the police were justified in stopping Garcia because his unprovoked, head*420long flight in a high-crime area provided a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See C.E.L. v. State, 24 So.3d 1181, 1185 (Fla.2009) (citing Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124-25, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000)). In fact, the police had probable cause to arrest Garcia for resisting or obstructing an officer without violence based on his failure to cease his headlong flight in response to the officers’ directions for him to do so. See C.E.L., 24 So.3d at 1189 (holding that a defendant’s “continued flight in knowing defiance of the officer’s lawful order to stop constituted the offense of obstructing without violence”).
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and CRENSHAW, JJ, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Janiel Molina Perez v. State, 138 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ppellant’s conviction for resisting an officer without violence because although the appellant ran when unmarked police vehicles pulled into the parking lot of a pool hall, the deputy did not tell the appellant to stop). Cf. [*1101] State v. Garcia, 126 So. 3d 419, 419-20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that the police, who exited a van wearing “Sheriff’ vests and yelling “Sheriffs Office,” had probable cause to arrest the appellee for resisting or obstructing an officer without violence based on his failure to c…
-
Hughes v. State, 132 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…lding that the State failed to prove every element of the offense of resisting an officer where, although the appellant fled upon seeing the officers, there was no command to stop by the officers at the time the appellant fled). Cf. State v. Garcia, 126 So. 3d 419, 419-20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing C.E.L. and holding that the police, who exited a van wearing “Sheriff’ vests and yelling “Sheriffs Office,” had probable cause to arrest the appellee for resisting or obstructing an officer without violence based o…
-
McCLAIN v. State, 202 So. 3d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…119, 125, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000). In such a case, “continued flight in knowing -defiance of the officer’s lawful order to stop constitutefe] the offense of obstructing without violence.” C.E.L., 24 So. 3d at 1189; see State v. Garcia, 126 So. 3d 419, 419-20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Thus, Wardlow allows the use of the high-crime-area factor, combined with “unprovoked flight,” to create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The circuit court’s order explains that the jury heard no evidence abo…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000)
- C.E.L. v. State, 24 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. 2009)