Irons v. State, 85-1456
| Decision Date | 03 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1456,85-1456 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1924, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2450 Claude Lee IRONS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Ann N. Radabaugh, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Claude Irons appeals his conviction and sentence for armed robbery. We reverse.
After the state charged Irons with armed robbery, he filed a motion to suppress all evidence which a sheriff seized subsequent to a warrantless stop of the car appellant was driving. In his motion, Irons stated that a deputy sheriff stopped his car, detained him and two other occupants, and searched the vehicle. Irons further averred that the stop was unlawful because the deputy did not have an articulable suspicion which justified the stop of the vehicle.
At the hearing on the motion, the state requested the court to deny the motion on the ground of legal insufficiency. The state argued that the failure of the motion to include a pertinent fact which the defense knew, that the sheriff stopped appellant pursuant to a BOLO, failed to give the court sufficient grounds and facts upon which to make a proper decision. The state also argued that the facts within the motion were not detailed enough to shift the burden to the state, and that all of Irons' allegations were mere conclusions of law. The court denied the motion to suppress, finding that it contained insufficient facts and merely conclusions of law.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(h)(2) requires a motion to suppress to state the evidence sought to be suppressed, the reasons for suppression, and a general statement of facts. Irons' motion listed in detail the evidence he sought to have suppressed. It stated that the stop was not justified by an articulable suspicion, and that, but for the stop, the search and seizure by the state would not have obtained the evidence. The motion also contained a general statement of facts concerning the stop. Appellant was not required to state that the sheriff stopped him pursuant to a BOLO. Irons' sole burden was to show the absence of a warrant. At this point, the burden shifted to the state to demonstrate that the police acted within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. Woolley v. State, 459 So.2d 1101, 1102 (Fla.2d DCA 1984), petition for review denied, 466 So.2d 218 (Fla.1985); Walker v. State, 433 So.2d 644, 645 (Fla.2d DCA 1983). The trial judge erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress based on the legal insufficiency of his motion.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fortesa-Ruiz
...we affirm the trial court's suppression of the evidence. 1 See State v. Williams, 538 So.2d 1346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Irons v. State, 498 So.2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Morales v. State, 407 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Black v. State, 383 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 392 So.2d ......
-
Mitchell v. State
...warrant, it is the government's burden to establish, by proof, a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, see Irons v. State, 498 So.2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), here, probable cause. The State's evidence failed to establish the C.I.'s veracity or reliability, and the State did not pr......
-
R.E. v. State, 88-1278
...engaged in wrongdoing. Tamer v. State, 484 So.2d 583 (Fla.1986). The state carries the burden of making this showing. Irons v. State, 498 So.2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); St. John v. State, 363 So.2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA In the instant case, the state failed to carry its burden of showing that th......
-
Nelson v. State, 1D02-2406.
...384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 3. See Houck v. State, 421 So.2d 1113, 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Irons v. State, 498 So.2d 958, 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). ...