RONALD CURRENS, 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.
Ronald Currens appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, challenging whether a police officer had lawful grounds to order him out of a legally parked vehicle. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, holding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to approach the vehicle and therefore all evidence derived from the illegal detention must be suppressed.
The officer lacked sufficient reasonable suspicion to approach the vehicle or order its occupants to exit. Appellant's quick hand motion, standing alone, did not constitute reasonable suspicion or probable cause to investigate. As the initial detention was illegal, the subsequent seizure of marijuana was also illegal and should have been suppressed.
[1] A police officer may not order an occupant out of a legally parked vehicle unless the officer has a founded or reasonable suspicion that the occupant has committed, is co…
[2] A furtive movement by a vehicle occupant, without more, does not constitute a founded or reasonable suspicion justifying an investigatory stop or detention.
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“The officer could investigate appellant's presence in the legally parked vehicle only if he had 'a founded or reasonable suspicion which requires further investigation to determine whether its [the car's] occupants have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime.'”
Establishes the legal standard required for an officer to approach and investigate a parked vehicle and its occupants
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt approximately 1:30 A.M., a police officer observed a legally parked sports car with three occupants, including Currens, with windows closed and eng…
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 Unlawful Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
MOORE, Judge.
This appeal challenges the denial of a motion to suppress evidence after which the appellant entered a plea of no contest to charges of possession of marijuana and hashish. He was convicted and sentenced.
At approximately 1:30 A. M., a police officer observed a sports car, legally parked, with the windows closed and engine off. The car contained three occupants, including appellant. After passing the car, the officer stationed himself at a vantage point where he could observe the car for approximately three to four minutes. Seeing no unusual activity, the officer drove his motorcycle up to and adjacent with the car at which point the appellant, noticing the officer, made a quick motion with his hand between his legs. Appellant was ordered out of his vehicle and upon exiting same the officer observed what appeared to be marijuana on the floor of the vehicle. Appellant was arrested for possession of marijuana which was seized pursuant to the arrest.
We find that under these circumstances the officer did not have a sufficient reason for ordering appellant to leave his vehicle. The officer could investigate appellant’s presence in the legally parked vehicle only if he had “a founded or reasonable suspicion which requires further investigation to determine whether its [the car’s] occupants have committed, are committing, or are about to commit a crime.” Lower v. State, 343 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Having observed the vehicle for approximately three to four minutes and seeing no suspicious activity, the officer had no reason to approach the vehicle or its occupants. Upon the officer’s arrival, appellant’s quick movement of his hand between his legs did not, in and of itself, constitute such a founded or reasonable suspicion, nor did it constitute probable cause to enable the officer to order appellant out of his car for the purpose of conducting an investigation. There was no indication that appellant was involved in any criminal activity, nor was there any reason to believe that the safety of the officer or the public was endangered.
As the officer’s initial detention of appellant was illegal, the subsequent seizure of the marijuana is similarly illegal because had it not been for the initial approach without justification the marijuana would never have been discovered. As this Court stated in Thomas v. State, 297 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974):
“The stop here can only be classified as an exploratory one based on unfounded suspicion.”
Accordingly, the motion to suppress should have been granted. We therefore find that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress and reverse the conviction and sentence and remand with instructions to discharge the appellant. Bailey v. State, 319 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1975); Bennett v. State, 350 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Vollmer v. State, 337 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Lower, supra.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY, C. J., concurs.
RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge, dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Walker v. State, 514 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…. [*1151] An officer who observes someone in a high crime area make such movement may have his suspicions aroused, but may not legally detain the person for further investigation. G.J.P. v. State, 469 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Currens v. State, 363 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Even were there reasonable suspicion to detain Walker, the officer exceeded the permissible scope of an investigatory pat-down. Where an officer has probable cause to believe that someone properly detained is armed with a dange…
-
G.J.P. v. State, 469 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…rown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979). The officers’ suspicion was not raised to the level of a “founded” suspicion when appellant made a quick movement [*828] upon the officers’ approach of the vehicle. Currens v. State, 363 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). An officer who observes a car parked in a high crime area and then sees one of the occupants make a quick movement may have his suspicions aroused, but he does not have the “founded” suspicion necessary to legally detain the per…
-
Dees v. State, 564 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…This court found that the officers’ actions of parking their patrol car behind the vehicle in which appellant was sitting, ordering the occupants out of the car, and asking their identities, constituted an investigatory stop. See Currens v. State, 363 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (officer conducted investigatory stop where he observed a legally parked vehicle, stationed himself where he could observe the car for a few minutes, saw no unusual activity, pulled his motorcycle up to and adjacent with the vehi…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bailey v. State, 319 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)
- Thomas v. State, 297 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Lucinda Stratton v. McQUEEN, 337 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Porter v. State, 350 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)