STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES ELWOOD BROOKS, 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 of Florida appeals a trial court's order suppressing evidence of a pistol found on James Brooks during a frisk conducted by Tampa police officers in a high-crime area in the early morning hours. The appellate court reverses, holding that the officers' frisk was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Terry v. Ohio, given the totality of circumstances including the reported gunshot, the suspects' presence in the area at 4:00 a.m., their denial of hearing the shot, and the high-crime neighborhood.
The frisk was constitutional and reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. While a high-crime neighborhood alone is insufficient to justify a search, the totality of circumstances here—including the reported gunshot, the time of day (4:00 a.m.), the suspects' presence in the specific area where the shot was heard, their denial of hearing anything, and the officers' need to ensure their own safety—justified the frisk.
[1] A "high crime" neighborhood is not, in itself, a sufficient fact to justify a frisk.
[2] Police officers may frisk individuals when the totality of circumstances, including the time of day, location, and suspicious activity, creates a reasonable belief that t…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“they may not frisk simply because they saw two men sitting on the steps at 4:00 o'clock in the morning. This is true even though the officers were in a 'high crime' area.”
Establishes that presence in a high-crime area alone cannot justify a frisk under Fourth Amendment law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn July 29, 1972, at approximately 4:00 a.m., Tampa police officers Bevan and Saunders heard what sounded like a gunshot in the 2600 block of Tampa. T…
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 Unconstitutional Search And Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
The state interlocutorily appeals, pursuant to F.S. § 924.071, the granting of a motion to suppress. Patrolmen R. D. Be-van and J. D. Saunders of the Tampa Police Department were cruising in the 2600 block in the City of Tampa in the early *56morning hours of July 29, 1972. They heard a sound like a gunshot in back of them but observed no one on the street. They went around the block and observed two black males sitting on the steps at 2610 Twenty-second Street. They walked up to the men and asked them if they had been there long and if they heard a shot. The men answered they had not. The officers then decided to frisk the subjects and found on appellee Brooks a .22 caliber pistol. The trial judge granted the motion to suppress the evidence as the fruit of an unconstitutional search.
The state has cited several cases, some of which have been decided since the enactment of the “stop-and-frisk law” and those cases correctly cite the law as it is in Florida. The facts in this case appear to measure up to the standards set in those cases and certainly comport with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Thomas v. State, 250 So.2d 15 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1971); State v. Padilla, 235 So.2d 309 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1970) and other cases.
It is apparent that no hard and fast rule can be adopted which will in every instance guide the police as to when they may or may not frisk. It is clear, however, that they may not frisk simply because they saw two men sitting on the steps at 4:00 o’clock in the morning. 'This is true even though the officers were in a “high crime” area. The facts which indicate to police officers a probability of illegal activity must point more directly to the suspects who are subjected to the seizure than would those facts. If this were sufficient to justify a search anyone in such a so-called “high crime” area would be subject to a search just by virtue of his presence.
We must note, however, that Florida law does give police officers justification for such searches in circumstances where the “scene” is more localized, such as a bar. See, State v. Woodard, 280 So.2d 700, opinion filed July 25, 1973 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1973); State v. Profera, 239 So.2d 867 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1970); State v. Holmes, 256 So.2d 32 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1971); State v. Padilla, supra.
A “high crime” neighborhood is not in itself a sufficiently incriminating fact as to give rise to an inference of guilt on the part of those found therein. However, these circumstances do contribute to justifying a search where there is additional and more directly suspicious evidence such as we have here.
The police officers were certainly justified in inquiring of the only two people in the area where the shot was heard. Upon inquiry the appellee replied that he had heard nothing like a shot although he and his friend said they had been there a while according to Officer Bevan. Considering the totality of the circumstances including the high crime area and time of day, the officers at this point were justified in frisking the two men at least for their own safety.
We would not expect the officers under these circumstances to turn their backs and walk back to their police car without assuring themselves that they would be safe in doing so. Nor would we expect them to walk backwards to their car keeping an eye on the two men. Neither action would have been reasonable. The search was the only reasonable thing to do and the evidence should not have been suppressed.
We therefore reverse for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
McNAMARA v. State, 357 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1978)…robable cause sufficient to justify the frisking of appellant for their own safety. Cf. Wilson v. State, 324 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), Williams v. State, 294 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974), cert. den. 299 So. 2d 602 (Fla.1974), State v. Brooks, 281 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), State v. Woodard, 280 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).- In determining the reasonableness of the governmental search of a citizen’s person, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Terry v. State of Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 186…
-
State v. Raunel Ramos, 378 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…founded suspicion of criminal activity involving an actual or potential threat of violence. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972); State v. Brooks, 281 So. 2d 55 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); State v. Woodard, 280 So. 2d 700 (Fla.2d DCA 1973). This limited basis for, and scope of search is tailored specifically for the police to accomplish the temporary detention, freeze the criminal situation and investigate further w…
-
State v. Francois, 355 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…Mimms,-U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977). Having observed the bulge and having received a warning that Francois might be armed, the officer did not act unreasonably in protecting himself by patting down the .defendant. See State v. Brooks, 281 So. 2d 55 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); Ingram v. State, 264 So. 2d 109 (Fla.4th DCA 1972); and Thomas v. State, 250 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). We believe that it is not unreasonable to allow police officers to take actions necessary to protect themselves and if a c…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- State v. Holmes, 256 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Thomas v. State, 250 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- State v. Padilla, 235 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- State v. Profera, 239 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- State v. Woodard, 280 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)