Cummo v. State, 90-02872

Decision Date19 June 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90-02872,90-02872
Citation581 So.2d 967
PartiesChristopher CUMMO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 581 So.2d 967, 16 Fla. L. Week. D1644
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Joseph Torres, Naples, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Ron Napolitano, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

HALL, Judge.

The appellant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress crack cocaine found in his possession, contending the police lacked probable cause to search him for drugs. We agree and reverse.

The appellant, Christopher Cummo, was stopped by Officer Mohaupt of the Punta Gorda Police Department for operating his pickup truck with only one headlight. Since the stop occurred in a high crime area, backup officers were called to the scene as a matter of routine. Detective Wright was one of the backup officers dispatched. Upon his arrival at the scene, Detective Wright was informed by Officer Mohaupt that he, Mohaupt, had stopped Cummo in the same area approximately one month earlier. At that time, Cummo had admitted to Officer Mohaupt that he was in the area to buy cocaine.

Detective Wright approached the vehicle and began talking with Cummo. He observed Cummo had something in his mouth which he appeared to be trying to hide. When Detective Wright asked him a question, Cummo manipulated the object by moving it with his tongue from one cheek to the other and making "a swallowing motion." Suspecting Cummo was attempting to conceal rock cocaine and was thus trying to swallow it, Detective Wright grabbed Cummo "around the throat, bottom of the jaw, trying to lock his jaw so he couldn't swallow." As a result, Cummo "spit out a small amount of crushed crack cocaine on the hood of his vehicle." A field test indicated the substance was, indeed, crack cocaine. Thereafter, Cummo was arrested, Mirandized, and charged with possession. Upon the denial of his motion to suppress, Cummo pled no contest to the charge and was sentenced to five years' probation.

In its order denying Cummo's motion to suppress, the trial court found that pursuant to a proper traffic stop "the further conduct of the officer in stopping the defendant from swallowing that which was in his mouth fell well within the range of knowledge and experience of the officer in handling such matters."

The right to search an individual pursuant to a valid detention is not automatic. Thomas v. State, 533 So.2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). A police officer may conduct a search incident to a valid stop only if he has probable cause to believe the person detained is armed with a dangerous weapon. See Michigan v. State, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983); ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Simms v. State, 2D09-3971.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 28, 2011
    ...used] as a catchall provision to detain a citizen and prosecute him where there was insufficient basis to convict on some other charge." 581 So.2d at 967 (citing cf. B.A.A., 356 So.2d at 304 (stating that if officer believed appellant was soliciting prostitution by repeatedly approaching dr......
  • McNeil v. State, 98-2217.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 10, 1999
    ...that a defendant may be trying to conceal contraband in their mouth is insufficient to justify a search); see also Cummo v. State, 581 So.2d 967, 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); cf. I.T. v. State, 614 So.2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (holding that officer's plain view observation of plastic baggie used......
  • S.K.W. v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 17, 2013
    ...“catchall provision to detain a citizen and prosecute [her] where there was insufficient basis to convict on some other charge.” Woody, 581 So.2d at 967;accord Simms, 51 So.3d at 1268. The officers had no basis to detain S.K.W. for attempted burglary, or even trespassing. See§ 810.09(2)(b),......
  • State v. Caicedo, 92-2273
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 10, 1993
    ...of a money transaction, or an officer's bare suspicion of drug activity, are insufficient to create probable cause. See Cummo v. State, 581 So.2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Johnson v. State, 565 So.2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). 1 However, this case involved much more than a money transaction acco......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT