STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
WILLIE J. ANDERSON
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 trial court properly suppressed evidence where an officer's initial consensual encounter escalated into an investigatory stop without reasonable suspicion when the officer questioned defendants about a bag and its contents.
[1] An officer's questioning of a person about an object in their possession and the contents thereof, combined with a request to examine the object, transforms an initial co…
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“While the initial contact may have been consensual, once the officer started questioning the Defendants about the bag and contents and requested to look inside the bag this became an investigatory stop which required reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.”
Trial court's finding in granting the motion to suppress
A Palm Beach County Sheriff's Deputy encountered two defendants at 3:00 a.m. carrying a white plastic bag containing stolen items. The officer questio…
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 Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant,
V.
ARNOLD STEVEN LAMAR, Appellee. Nos. 4D17-3916 and 4D18-48
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant,
V.
WILLIE J. ANDERSON, Appellee. Nos. 4D18-32, 4D18-47 and 4D18-336
[October 20, 2018]
Consolidated appeals of non-final orders from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Charles E. Burton, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 50-2016-CF-012788AWB, 50-2016-CF-012779AWB, 50- 2016-CF-012788BWB, 50-2016-CF-012779BWB and 50-2017-CF- 002180AWB.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee, Arnold Steven Lamar.
Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Fourth District, West Palm Beach, for appellee, Willie J. Anderson.
PER CURIAM.
It is sua sponte ordered that consolidated case numbers 4D17-3916 and 4D18-48 shall be consolidated with consolidated case numbers 4D18- 32, 4D18-47 and 4D18-336 for all purposes and are affirmed.
GROSS and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
FORST, J., dissents with opinion.
FORST, J., dissenting.
A Palm Beach County Sheriff's Deputy on patrol in the City of Belle Glade encountered the two defendants at 3:00 a.m. The defendants were carrying a white plastic bag. The defendants were detained and ultimately arrested after law enforcement determined that the bag contained stolen items. The defendants were charged with burglary and theft. They filed motions to suppress. The trial court granted the motions, finding that, "[w]hile the initial contact may have been consensual, once the officer started questioning the Defendants about the bag and contents and requested to look inside the bag this became an investigatory stop which required reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.”
The trial court's finding that the officer “requested to look inside the bag" is contrary to the uncontradicted testimony of the officer that “I asked [the defendants], I just basically said like, hey, where did you guys—you know, where did you get this bag, or what's inside. And one of the males opened up the bag and showed me what was inside.” This is not “a request to look inside the bag.” Up to the point that the officer semi-detained¹ the defendants for forty-five minutes, this was a consensual encounter. Once the officer viewed the contents of the bag (new watches wrapped in plastic, a woman's purse, mail addressed to individuals other than the defendants), and in light of the totality of the circumstances (including time and place of the encounter and the fact a hurricane watch was in effect), he had the requisite reasonable suspicion that the defendants had committed a crime. See State v. Bullock, 164 So. 3d 701, 704-05 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“Reasonable suspicion can develop as a result of direct observations by law enforcement . . . ."). Accordingly, I would reverse the
trial court orders granting the motions to suppress and, thus, I respectfully dissent from the panel's affirmance of the trial court orders.
* * *