DAVID ALTON LEWIS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court reversed a drug possession conviction and suppression denial, holding that an anonymous tip about a car matching a general description (red Volkswagen with two white males) is insufficient reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop under Florida law and the Fourth Amendment.
An anonymous tip standing alone, with only a general description of a vehicle and no corroborating information, is insufficient reasonable suspicion to justify a stop. The circumstances here were insufficient to reasonably indicate the occupants had committed, were committing, or were about to commit a crime.
[1] An anonymous tip alone is insufficient to justify a police stop of a vehicle.
[2] A police officer must have a founded or reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime to justify a stop.
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“Is an anonymous tip that an automobile is carrying contraband a sufficient basis for the police to stop an automobile of that description? We hold it is not”
Establishes the core holding that anonymous tips alone cannot justify a stop.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Belcher heard radio reports that two white males in a red Volkswagen were selling drugs on the north side of Lakeland, and that a matching car…
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 Stop And Frisk cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Is an anonymous tip that an automobile is carrying contraband a sufficient basis for the police to stop an automobile of that description? We hold it is not and reverse the trial court which denied appellant/defendant Lewis’ motion to suppress.
On July 21, 1975, in the early afternoon, while on patrol in the south side of Lake-land, Officer Belcher overheard a report on his radio that two white males in a red Volkswagen were selling drugs on the north side of Lakeland outside of Belcher’s district. Belcher then heard a report from another officer that a car matching that description was leaving the area of the alleged sale and heading south. Belcher moved to intercept the car.. And when he saw a car and passengers fitting the description, he stopped that car and asked the driver for his license. The driver responded that it had expired. The officer then asked the appellant, who was the passenger, if he was the owner. Appellant replied in the affirmative. Officer Belcher then placed both men under arrest, the driver for driving without a license and the appellant for “allowing an unauthorized person to drive.” A subsequent search of appellant by Officer Belcher revealed five packets of heroin in his shirt pocket.
Appellant was charged with possession of a controlled substance. His motion to suppress was denied and he was convicted following a jury trial.
In order to stop an automobile and to request identification from its occupants, it is not necessary for the police to have probable cause. Rather, the police are governed in this respect by Section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1975) (the “Stop and Frisk Law”) and Terry v. Ohio, 1968, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889. In effect, it is required that the officer have a founded or reasonable suspicion which requires further investigation.1 State v. Othen, 300 So. 2d 732 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). We hold that the circumstances here were insufficient to reasonably indicate that the occupants of the ear had committed, were committing, or were about to commit a crime. Section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1975).
Even though Officer Belcher was acting upon a radio dispatch, we must still look to the source of that dispatch and determine its reliability. Whiteley v. Warden, 1971, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306. Here the source of the dispatch was merely an “anonymous citizen.” There is no contention that the tip was bolstered by any other reports or observations. In a very similar case, we have held that such an anonymous report from an unknown and untested informant, standing alone, is an insufficient basis to justify a stop. State v. Hendry, 309 So. 2d 61, (Fla.2d DCA 1975).
In fact, the state’s position is less strong in this case than it was in Hendry. There the informant had given an officer a tag number for the vehicle, and the police were certain of stopping the car described by the informant. Here, the description was only of a red Volkswagen carrying two white males, and the car was stopped at a considerable distance from the scene of the alleged sale of drugs.
The stop being illegal, the resulting arrest and search were fruits of the illegal detention, State v. Hendry, supra, and therefore, on motion, the evidence should have been suppressed.
Reversed.
McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur. . We distinguish the principle controlling the case at bar from a police “road block” or similar system of checking drivers licenses as sanctioned in City of Miami v. Aronovitz, 114 So. 2d 784 (Fla.1959). In Aronovitz, the Supreme Court noted it was not passing on the validity of a search of a vehicle which has been intercepted merely for the purpose of examining the license of the driver. Cf., Stephenson v. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 329 So. 2d 373 (Fla.1st DCA 1976).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (34 total)
-
State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…at high probability of guilt which is implied by the term “probable cause.” State v. Payton, 344 So. 2d 648 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). To justify temporary detention, only “founded suspicion” in the mind of the detaining officer is required. Lewis v. State, 337 So. 2d 1031 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); State v. Othen, 300 So. 2d 732 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); State v. Ebert, 251 So. 2d 38 (Fla.2d DCA 1971). A “founded suspicion” is a suspicion which has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer, when those cir…
-
Kehoe v. State, 521 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1988)…a “founded suspicion” to justify the stop, it could still be upheld as a valid traffic stop. Police may stop and investigate a motor vehicle when there is a “founded” suspicion of criminal activity in the mind of the police officer. Lewis v. State, 337 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So. 2d 427 (Fla.1977). See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). “A ‘founded suspicion’ ... has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer, when those cir [*1…
-
State v. Hetland, 366 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…. One simple rule will not cover every situation.” In our view, a vague description simply would not justify a law enforcement officer in stopping every individual who, or every vehicle which, might possibly meet that description. In Lewis v. State, 337 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) this court disapproved a stop based on information describing only a red Volkswagen carrying two white males who were selling drugs, where a car meeting that description was stopped a considerable distance from the scene of the al…
Previewing 3 of 34 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)
- Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo. State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1971)
- City OF Miami v. Abe Aronovitz, 114 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 1959)
- State v. Othen, 300 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- State v. Hendry, 309 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Stephenson v. Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs., 329 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)