CAM v. State, 4D00-2970.
Decision Date | 19 December 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 4D00-2970.,4D00-2970. |
Citation | 819 So.2d 802 |
Parties | C.A.M., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, Margaret Good-Earnest and Samuel A. Walker, Assistant Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna L. Eng, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Charged with possession of marijuana, this juvenile defendant moved to suppress the evidence. He argued that the police officer detaining him had neither probable cause nor any lesser basis to search or seize him. We agree.
The background events are not complicated. Police were looking for a violent adult offender and received a tip that he would be in a certain area in a "Mustang-type" white convertible automobile with a tan top. A Sebring convertible with a tan top passed their view, and they decided to follow it. After a short distance the vehicle drove into a driveway and stopped. The police pulled behind it. Three persons emerged from the vehicle, none of whom was identified in the record as the violent offender for whom police were searching. Defendant was one of the three but not the driver.
As one officer approached the driver, another approached defendant. According to this officer's later testimony, he saw a bulge in defendant's pocket which he conceived could be a weapon but which he did not otherwise describe. So he patted defendant's pocket and immediately recognized, according to his later testimony, that the bulging substance hidden in the pocket and thus invisible to him was marijuana. He thereupon arrested defendant and proceeded to conduct a full search, in which he retrieved a package containing a substance that proved to be marijuana. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress.
As the supreme court explained in State v. Glatzmayer, 789 So.2d 297 (Fla. 2001):
789 So.2d at 301. The court further explained that:
789 So.2d at 301. Therefore accepting the trial court's resolution of all contested facts supported by competent evidence, we now proceed to review the application of the Fourth Amendment to those facts de novo.
In this case, the officer testified that over his fourteen-year career in law enforcement, he had felt thousands of nickel bags.1 He said that he had been trained in narcotics identification and investigation. He has made hundreds of narcotics arrests and has taught classes on narcotics identification, teaching other officers how to perform protective patdowns. He has been assigned to narcotics task forces and was a member of a SWAT team for several years. He has participated in the execution of hundreds of search warrants. From his experience and training with narcotics, most people who roll their own tobacco cigarettes carry their tobacco in a pouch, while marijuana is normally associated with plastic bags. He claims, based on his training and experience, that he can easily feel the difference between a plastic bag commonly used for illegal drugs, and a pouch or case commonly used for tobacco through clothing. On the basis of his power to distinguish between ordinary plastic bags in the pocket and tobacco pouches or cases in the pocket, he testified that as soon as he felt the package through the material of defendant's pants he knew that the youth was carrying marijuana. From this testimony, the court concluded that the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant as a result of merely feeling the outside of his pants and knowing that it was a plastic bag inside.
The facts of this case intersect— but, as we shall see, do not entirely overlap—with those in Doctor v. State, 596 So.2d 442 (Fla.1992). That case also involves an officer with a founded suspicion doing a lawful patdown for weapons who then claims to have recognized the feel of unseen "contraband" through the subject's clothing. In upholding the finding of probable cause, the court stressed certain important matters. First the court stated the limited function of the permissible patdown founded on a reasoned suspicion:
596 So.2d at 444-45. In approving the finding of probable cause in that case, the Doctor court also emphasized:
[e.s.]
Importantly for comparative purposes, Doctor did not rely exclusively on the officer's unusual powers of palpation. As the court explained:
[e.o.]
596 So.2d at 445. We do not find these additional factors present in the case we face today.
All we have after seeing the bulge— which, unlike Doctor, is not otherwise described—and the performance of the patdown is the officer's unadorned conclusion that what he felt was marijuana. To be sure, we have the officer's experience and his ability to discern plastic bags in the pants pocket. But we do not have a suspicious gait upon leaving the automobile. We do not have defendant attempting to hide the bulge in the way Doctor did. We do not have any of the quite specific testimony in Doctor as to the particular "size, shape and texture" of this package that would lead anyone with knowledge similar with this officer's to the inescapable conclusion that in feeling the substance through the clothing material of the pants and the packaging inside it was—to the exclusion of all of the many other lawful possibilities—marijuana. Concluding that the state failed to meet the burden of establishing probable cause set forth in Doctor, we therefore reverse the order denying the motion to suppress and instruct the court to grant the motion and suppress the fruits of the search. It follows that the finding of delinquency and the resulting disposition are likewise reversed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maxwell v. State, 5D04-4177.
...1225, 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) ("We review de novo the adequacy of Miranda warnings, as a question of law.") (citing C.A.M. v. State, 819 So.2d 802, 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)), review denied sub nom. State v. West, 892 So.2d 1014 (Fla.2005). In order to comply with the dictates of Miranda, th......
-
Roberts v. State
...statement was improperly denied. We review de novo the adequacy of Miranda warnings, as a question of law. See C.A.M. v. State, 819 So.2d 802, 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In Miranda, the Supreme Court said that the right to have counsel present during an interrogation is indispensable to the p......
-
T.T. v. State, 4D18-442
...bag was contraband did not come as a result of his tactile perception, but from an educated hunch ...." Id. (citing C.A.M. v. State , 819 So.2d 802, 805 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (reversing denial of a motion to suppress where the officer's unadorned conclusion was that he immediately knew the pa......
-
Griffin v. State
...v. J.D., 796 So.2d 1217, 1219–20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (quoting Doctor v. State, 596 So.2d 442, 445 (Fla.1992) ); C.A.M. v. State, 819 So.2d 802, 804–05 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (reversing denial of suppression where officer testified he could “easily feel the difference between a plastic bag comm......
-
POCKET POLICE: THE PLAIN FEEL DOCTRINE THIRTY YEARS LATER.
...Dickerson, its probable cause analysis is cited in subsequent cases assessing plain feel credibility. See, e.g., C.A.M. v. State, 819 So. 2d 802, 805 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001); State v. J.D., 796 So. 2d 1217, 1219-20 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. (77.) 668 N.E.2d 1250, 1253-54 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).......