LONNIE WHITLEY, 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.
Lonnie Whitley was convicted of drug and weapons possession after police stopped a vehicle he occupied without valid legal basis. The court reversed his conviction, holding that mere occupancy of a vehicle previously used in a drug transaction does not establish reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a detention under Florida law.
The court held that under the circumstances of this case, reasonable or founded suspicion is not established by mere occupancy of a vehicle known to have been used in the commission of a crime. Therefore, the detention was invalid and all evidence seized as a result of the invalid stop must be suppressed.
[1] A detention is invalid if the detaining officer lacks a reasonable or founded suspicion that the person detained has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a cri…
[2] Occupancy of a vehicle previously used in a crime, without more, does not establish a reasonable or founded suspicion for detention.
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“A valid detention under Section 901.151, Florida Statutes, requires that the officer be aware of circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person detained for investigation has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a criminal violation.”
States the legal standard for valid detention under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice Sergeant Hitchcox had a vehicle under surveillance because it had been used in a drug transaction two weeks prior. When Whitley entered the veh…
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 Proffer Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Chief Judge.
An information charging appellant with possession of marijuana, heroin, and paraphernalia and carrying a concealed weapon was filed in the circuit court on January 16, 1976. .Appellant filed a motion to suppress certain evidence on March 4, 1976. After a hearing the motion was denied, and appellant then entered a plea of nolo contendere to all four counts of the information. He was adjudicated guilty by the trial court and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He reserved the, right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress.
Appellant contends on appeal that since the circumstances did not meet the standards of Section 901.151, Florida Statutes, the detention was invalid and thereby the evidence seized was inadmissible at trial.
The first time Police Sergeant Troy Hitchcox saw appellant was when appellant entered a vehicle which Hitchcox had under surveillance. The vehicle had been used in a drug transaction two weeks earlier. As the automobile was driven away Hitchcox and his partner, Detective Bonnie Lewis, followed. Hitchcox radioed for a uniformed officer to stop the vehicle.
After the automobile was stopped Hitch-cox observed what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette in the ashtray. Detective Lewis then arrested appellant and the driver of the car for possession of marijuana. An inventory search revealed a gun concealed under the seat, heroin, and a heroin blending kit. These items became the basis of the charges against appellant.
Hitchcox and Lewis testified that the only basis for the stop was to continue a narcotics investigation. They did not see a traffic violation being committed. They were not making a license check. They did not have a warrant or consent to stop and search the vehicle. Neither police officer testified that appellant was connected with the previous drug transaction which had involved the same automobile.
A valid detention under Section 901.151, Florida Statutes, requires that the officer be aware of circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person detained for investigation has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a criminal violation. If the stop is not valid any evidence resulting from the stop is inadmissible. Lewis v. State, 337 So. 2d 1031 (Fla.2d DCA 1976).
We hold that under the circumstances of this case a reasonable or founded suspicion is not established by occupancy of the vehicle known to have been used in commission of a crime.
At the hearing objections to several questions propounded to Hitchcox concerning what certain confidential informants had told him were sustained on the basis of hearsay. Since this was a hearing on a motion to suppress and the issue was whether the police had a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity the questions were proper and Hitchcox should have been permitted to answer. See Treverrow v. State, 194 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1967); Johnson v. State, 339 So. 2d 667 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). Nevertheless, the state failed to make a proffer of what he would have said, and there is no indication that Hitchcox had been told of any specifics concerning a drug transaction scheduled to take place in the vehicle.
In view of the disposition of this appeal we need not address the issue of imposition of a general sentence.
Accordingly, the order denying the motion to suppress, the judgment, and the sentence are reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
LaMarcus Edward Carter v. State, 454 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…f the illegal detention should have been suppressed. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 So. 2d 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Caladonato v. State, 348 So. 2d 326 (Fla.1977); Lewis v. State, 382 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Whitley v. State, 349 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Accordingly, we reverse Carter’s conviction and remand with directions for his discharge. We have reviewed appellant’s remaining contentions and have found them to be without merit. REVERSED and REMANDED. SCHEB and SCHOONOVER,…
-
Ingram v. State, 364 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…, C. J., and LETTS, J., concur. . Brant v. State, 349 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). . Mobley v. State, 335 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). . Wilson v. State, 324 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). . § 901.15(2), Fla.Stat. (1975); Whitley v. State, 349 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). . § 901.15(2), Fla.stat. (1975); Baker v. State, 316 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). . § 901.15(6), Fla.stat. (1975); Whitley v. State, supra; Bennett v. State, 344 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). . § 901.15(5), Fla.stat. (197…
-
State v. Rizo, 463 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…Rizo. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Gorney v. State, 409 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Robinson v. State, 388 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Parker v. State, 363 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Whitley v. State, 349 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). See State v. Webb, 398 So. 2d 820 (Fla.1981). Cf. Finney (information given to police by victim directly following crime constituted reasonable, articulable suspicion justifying police officer’s initial automobile stop of defenda…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Westberry v. Daves Auto Parts, 194 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1967)
- Lewis v. State, 337 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Johnson v. State, 339 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)