DAVID MCCLURE, 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.
David McClure appealed the denial of his motion to suppress marijuana evidence found during a traffic stop. The Florida appellate court agreed that the initial detention was improper because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, therefore the marijuana seizure was illegal.
The court held that the detention was improper because the officer lacked founded suspicion of criminal activity. Neither the appellant's stare nor the fact that he visited a known drug dealer could constitute reasonable suspicion, and therefore the seizure of marijuana resulting from the illegal detention was unlawful.
[1] An investigatory detention is valid only when a police officer has a reasonable or founded suspicion of criminal activity.
[2] A defendant's stare at a police officer, or the fact that the defendant visited a person alleged to be a drug dealer, does not, by itself, constitute a founded suspicion…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“an investigatory detention is valid only when a police officer had a reasonable or founded suspicion of the presence of criminal activity”
Establishes the legal standard required for valid police detentions
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 Foster observed two men leave a parked Volkswagen and enter an apartment of Samuel Anthony Mozola, Jr., whom Foster knew as a drug dea…
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 Investigative Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1188] RYDER, Judge.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress certain evidence. We agree.
During the suppression hearing, the testimony disclosed that Police Sergeant Robert Foster was on patrol in an unmarked police unit during the early morning hours of March 1, 1977. As he drove past an apartment complex, he observed two men alight from a parked Volkswagen and walk to the apartment of one Samuel Anthony Mozola, Jr., who Foster described as a well-known drug dealer. Foster also noticed the men were watching him. After they entered the apartment he radioed for Officer Wak-owiak to come to the area as a backup. Wakowiak did so and parked in a street near the apartment complex.
Subsequently, the two men, who had earlier drawn Foster’s attention, left Mozola’s apartment, returned to their vehicle, and began to drive off. When their car came even with Wakowiak’s police cruiser, appellant, who was the driver, stopped and stared at Wakowiak for fifteen to thirty seconds. At this point, Wakowiak put on his overhead flashing light, left his patrol car, walked over to appellant and asked for his identification. After appellant produced his license, Officer Wakowiak noticed a plastic bag containing marijuana lying next to the driver’s seat. Officer Foster also noticed the marijuana as he attempted to ascertain appellant’s passenger’s identification. The officers arrested appellant for possession of marijuana to which charge he later pled nolo contendere reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
As we have noted many times before, an investigatory detention is valid only when a police officer had a reasonable or founded suspicion of the presence of criminal activity. Foss v. State, 355 So. 2d 225 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Lower v. State, 348 So. 2d 410 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); Lewis v. State, 337 So. 2d 1031 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). Clearly, then Officer Wakowiak’s detention of appellant was improper. While appellant’s stare was most certainly annoying to Wakowiak, neither it nor the fact that appellant had visited a person alleged to be a drug dealer could serve as the basis for a founded suspicion of criminal activity. See Vollmer v. State, 337 So. 2d 1024 (Fla.2d DCA 1974).
Since the detention initially was improper, the seizure of the marijuana was also illegal. Lower v. State, supra. Accordingly, we vacate the order withholding adjudication and placing appellant on probation and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOARDMAN, C. J., and OTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mosley v. State, 519 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…e admitted that appellant’s fists were clenched in a nonthreatening manner. Nothing was passed between appellant and his female companion. Merely talking to a drug dealer does not raise a founded suspicion of criminal activity. See McClure v. State, 358 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). These facts simply do not create a founded suspicion of criminal activity. The detention was improper. Since the detention was improper, the seizure of cocaine was also improper. We reverse and remand with instructions to discha…
-
Levie Codie v. State, 406 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…he drivers merely appear to be talking to each other in the side parking lot of a closed filling station adjacent to a public highway at midnight is enough to give a passing deputy a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity. See McClure v. State, 358 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Lower v. State, 348 So. 2d 410 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).…
-
Oesterle v. State, 382 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…because it came about as the result of an illegal stop and detention. In order for a law enforcement officer to stop and detain a vehicle, the officer must have a well-founded suspicion of the presence of criminal activity. E. g., McClure v. State, 358 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). As we recently noted in State [*1295] v. W.O.R., 382 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), a well-founded suspicion is “ ‘a suspicion which has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer, when those circumstanc…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lewis v. State, 337 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Lucinda Stratton v. McQUEEN, 337 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Foster v. State, 348 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Lower v. State, 348 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Foss v. State, 355 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)