State v. Hendry, 74--343

• Decision Date: 14 February 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74--343,74--343
• Citation: 309 So.2d 61
• Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John A. HENDRY, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 61

309 So.2d 61

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John A. HENDRY, Appellee.

No. 74--343.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 14, 1975.

Rehearing Denied March 10, 1975.

Joseph P. D'Alessandro, State's Atty., Louis S. St. Laurent, Chief Asst. State's Atty., and James R. Long, Asst. State's Atty., Fort Myers, for appellant.

Robert E. Pyle, Lake Alfred, and Frank C. Alderman, III, Alderman, Hendry & Wallace, Fort, Myers, for appellee.

GRIMES, Judge.

On this appeal from an order of suppression, the evidence reflects that at approximately 11:34 A.M. Trooper Welch of the Florida Highway Patrol was advised by a passing motorist that some people in an automobile in Old Bridge Square had marijuana in their possession. He was given a description of the car and the tag number. Welch did not know the informant, nor did he ascertain the informant's name. The Highway Patrol relayed the information to the Lee County Sheriff's Department.

About forty-five minutes later, Trooper Welch, accompanied by Corporal Copping of the sheriff's department, located a vehicle in Old Bridge Square matching the description Welch had been given. Both officers got out of their cruisers. Appellee and others got out of the subject vehicle and approached the officers. Corporal Copping testified, 'At this time I advised them that I would have to detain them, that they were suspected of being in possession of marijuana, and at that time I advised them of their rights and (that) I was detaining them until Agent Matthews got there.'

Matthews, a narcotics agent with the sheriff's department, arrived five minutes later. In light of our decision in this case, we need not pass on the propriety of the manner in which the marijuana was later found in appellee's vehicle. In essence, the trial judge concluded that appellee had been illegally detained and that the marijuana which was discovered was a fruit of that illegal detention.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Adams v. Williams, 1972, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612, approved certain temporary police detentions short of arrest when it said:

'In Terry ¹ this Court recognized that 'a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.' Id., at 22, 88 S.Ct. at 1880, (20 L.Ed.2d) at 906. The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response. See id., at 23, 88 S.Ct. at 1881, (20 L.Ed.2d at 907). A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time. . . .'

In considering the extent to which a tip may play in giving the police the right to temporarily detain, the Supreme Court went on to say:

'Applying these principles to the present case, we believe that Sgt. Connolly acted justifiably in responding to his informant's tip....