Hoover v. State, 5D03-582.
| Decision Date | 30 April 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D03-582.,5D03-582. |
| Citation | 880 So.2d 710 |
| Parties | Gregory HOOVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gregory Hoover, Punta Gorda, pro se.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Gregory Hoover appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine. Because we conclude that the cocaine was found after an illegal, continued detention of Hoover, we reverse.
At the suppression hearing, police officer Marcus Bullock testified that he had been randomly checking license tags for suspended licenses or warrants. A records check revealed that the owner of the vehicle Hoover was driving had a suspended driver's license. Upon stopping Hoover, Bullock asked Hoover if he was the registered owner, and Hoover indicated that he was not. Bullock explained to Hoover that the registered owner of the vehicle had a suspended license, and Hoover replied that he knew he looked "suspicious." Bullock testified that Hoover looked nervous: his hands were fidgeting, he was sweating, and his speech was stumbling. Bullock checked Hoover's name and birth date, and verified that Hoover had a valid driver's license. Bullock explained that he asked Hoover to exit the vehicle because Bullock was concerned for his safety due to Hoover's behavior and felt that Hoover would attempt to flee in the vehicle. Upon Hoover's exiting the vehicle, a small piece of white, chalky substance sitting on Hoover's leg fell to the ground. The substance field-tested positive for cocaine.
In its order denying Hoover's motion to suppress evidence, the trial court concluded:
Based upon the totality of the circumstances, including the Defendant's presence in a high-drug area, his mannerisms, his unlikely story for being in an area, the short time of the encounter, and officer safety, this Court finds that the deputy had a reasonable suspicion that the Defendant was committing a criminal act and was merely starting his investigation when the drugs were found. See Eldridge v. State, 817 So.2d 884 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
.
Hoover concedes that the initial stop by the police officer was valid, but argues that the validity of the initial stop does not justify the police officer's continued detention of Hoover. We agree that Bullock's initial stop of Hoover was valid. See Smith v. State, 574 So.2d 300, 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
. However, absent a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity, once a police officer accomplishes the purpose of a traffic stop, a continued...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DBP v. State
...would have justified the pat down. Compare 31 So.3d 887 Copeland v. State, 756 So.2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also Hoover v. State, 880 So.2d 710 (Fla. 5th DCA Here, when the officer asked the defendant to take his hands out of his pockets, the request constituted a police order given th......
-
State v. Laina
...first determines that the vehicle's registered owner does not possess a valid driver's license.” We followed Smith in Hoover v. State, 880 So.2d 710 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), Guffey v. State, 796 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), and Florence v. State, 819 So.2d 939 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). In additio......
-
Woods v. State, 5D03-183.
...nervous and had repeatedly put his hands in his pockets was not a legal justification for the detention. Compare, e.g., Hoover v. State, 880 So.2d 710 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (nervous behavior of driver did not justify detention beyond that necessary to accomplish purpose of traffic stop).2 Thu......
-
Lugo v. State, 5D03-4084.
...simply acting nervous or fidgeting does not provide a reasonable suspicion for an officer to detain an individual. Hoover v. State, 880 So.2d 710, 712 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). On appeal, Lugo argues that his motion to suppress should have been granted because Officer Cerce did not have reasonab......