Beasley v. State
| Decision Date | 12 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-01369,91-01369 |
| Parties | Michael BEASLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 604 So.2d 871, 17 Fla. L. Week. D1908 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and John S. Lynch, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Brenda S. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
We have for review five issues raised by Michael Beasley, one of which is dispositive. Beasley was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of not more than twenty grams of cannabis. Beasley pled nolo contendere, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, which the state stipulated was dispositive. We reverse.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress Tampa Police Officer William J. Foote testified that around 9:30 p.m. on November 10, 1990, he was on patrol with Officer Novale in a high drug area, inside the Tampa Public Housing area of College Hill. Officer Foote testified that the officers are a part of a specialty squad in that area. Pursuant to an agreement with the Tampa Housing Authority, the officers have not only normal powers to arrest but also have authority to give trespass and eviction warnings and notices. On the evening in question, the officers observed a black male walking quickly away from their direction. Officer Foote testified that the black male slipped into a vacant, abandoned apartment. The apartment was owned by the Tampa Housing Authority. The officers went past the black male to an area where they believed they would be out of the black male's sight, waited thirty seconds, and backed up, so that the black male was now heading in their direction. When he came close, the officers exited their vehicle and asked if they could talk with him. Officer Foote testified that although the officers were suspicious of Beasley due to the nature of the area and his actions, he was free to go.
Officer Foote testified that the officers did not intend to give Beasley any type of trespass warning for going into the vacant, abandoned apartment. They asked Beasley his name and the reason for his presence on the property. The officers further advised Beasley that they wanted to pat him down for weapons. Officer Foote testified that they had no reason to believe Beasley was armed with weapons other than it was a "high narcotics area and a lot of people are known to carry weapons." Due to his experience as a police officer and due to Beasley's "suspicious activities," Officer Foote "believed that he could possibly and may very well have had weapons." Beasley was free to leave up until the time of the patdown search. Officer Foote testified that after advising Beasley that he was going to pat him down, Beasley told Foote...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CALDWELL v. State of Fla.
...Hunt v. State, 700 So.2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (drugs); Sholtz v. State, 649 So.2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (drugs); Beasley v. State, 604 So.2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (drugs); Harris v. State, 574 So.2d 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (evidence of burglary and grand theft). None of these cases invol......
-
Brown v. State, 95-3030
...In Interest of J.L., 623 So.2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Hamilton v. State, 612 So.2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Beasley v. State, 604 So.2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Hill v. State, 561 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). A founded suspicion is one based upon facts and circumstances observed by the of......
-
Enich v. State
...case, we recognize that several of the factors taken alone would not justify the pat-down search of the defendant. See Beasley v. State, 604 So.2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)(holding that defendant's presence in a "high narcotics area" where "a lot of people are known to carry weapons" insuffici......
-
Everette v. State
...had been known to possess a weapon in the past or was suspected of possessing a weapon when he was stopped. In Beasley v. State, 604 So.2d 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), this court rejected similar reasoning and concluded that the defendant's presence in a high narcotics area where many people are......