Hollingsworth v. State
| Decision Date | 01 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D07-467.,4D07-467. |
| Citation | 991 So.2d 990 |
| Parties | Nancy HOLLINGSWORTH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Nancy Hollingsworth appeals her convictions for possession of alprazolam, oxycodone, cocaine, tampering with evidence, and possession of drug paraphernalia on the ground that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress. We reverse, holding that the arresting officer did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.
Prior to pleading no contest, Ms. Hollingsworth filed a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to an investigatory stop and arrest. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the state presented the testimony of a Broward County Sheriff's deputy who testified that on April 27, 2004, at approximately 10:00 p.m., he and another deputy responded to a call concerning the sale of narcotics in an area known for drug activity. All area businesses were closed at the time. After responding to the call, both deputies remained in the area talking to one another from their patrol cars. One of the deputies testified that when he first saw Ms. Hollingsworth she was approximately ten to twenty feet away, walking toward him. After noticing the deputies' presence, Ms. Hollingsworth proceeded at a fast pace in the opposite direction, turning back around the corner from where she came. The deputies then followed Ms. Hollingsworth in their respective vehicles and observed her duck behind a parked van. One of the deputies exited his vehicle and ordered Ms. Hollingsworth to stop. She continued, however, to walk at a fast pace in the opposite direction. The deputy then ran after Ms. Hollingsworth and detained her in order to ask her to explain her presence. She responded that she was there to purchase crack cocaine. Ms. Hollingsworth was then arrested for loitering and prowling. A search incident to her arrest revealed narcotics and drug paraphernalia, resulting in her drug-related charges.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Ms. Hollingsworth argued that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop and that her subsequent arrest for loitering and prowling was without probable cause. Accordingly, she argued, her admission that she was in the area to purchase drugs and the evidence seized pursuant to the arrest were inadmissible. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. She pled no contest to the new charges and admitted to the violations of probation, preserving her right to appeal the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress.1
We accept the trial court's factual determinations in a motion to suppress, but review de novo whether the application of the law to the historical facts establishes an adequate basis for the trial court's finding of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Lee v. State, 868 So.2d 577, 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citing Curtis v. State, 748 So.2d 370, 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)).
"To justify an investigatory stop, the arresting officer had to have a reasonable suspicion that [Ms. Hollingsworth] had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime." Mitchell v. State, 955 So.2d 640, 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing Stennes v. State, 939 So.2d 1148, 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)); accord Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000). Here, the officer suspected Ms. Hollingsworth of loitering and prowling in violation of section 856.021, Florida Statutes (2004). The crime of loitering and prowling has two elements: (1) the defendant loitered and prowled "in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals," and (2) the loitering occurred under "circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity." § 856.021(1), Fla. Stat. (2004).
"With respect to the first element, the state must establish that the defendant engaged in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter v. State
... ... A reviewing court presumes the trial court's findings as to historical facts to be correct but reviews rulings on questions of law de novo. Falls v. State, 953 So.2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Hollingsworth v. State, 991 So.2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ... To justify a stop, the police must have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. In Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123-24, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000), the Supreme Court explained: ... While "reasonable ... ...
- Morgan v. State
-
Hunter v. State, No. 4D08-1976 (Fla. App. 3/31/2010)
...to be correct but reviews rulings on questions of law de novo. Falls v. State, 953 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Hollingsworth v. State, 991 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). To justify a stop, the police must have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. In Illinois v. Wardlow......
-
State v. Triplett
...law to the historical facts establishes an adequate basis for the trial court's finding of reasonable suspicion.” Hollingsworth v. State, 991 So.2d 990, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citing Lee v. State, 868 So.2d 577, 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). Here, the trial court's factual findings are not di......
-
Search and seizure
...conceals himself, the conduct occurred after they began to pursue her. The court erred in refusing suppression. Hollingsworth v. State, 991 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) LEOs were patrolling the parking lot of a strip club, and saw defendant pull into the parking lot but not park in a park......
-
Crimes
...or conceals himself, the conduct occurred after they began to pursue her. The court errs in refusing suppression. Hollingsworth v. State, 991 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) When defendant is seen pushing a lawnmower down the street around midnight, and he runs when the police approach, the ......