J.C.W. v. State
| Decision Date | 14 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1828,88-1828 |
| Citation | 545 So.2d 306,14 Fla. L. Weekly 943 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 943 J.C.W., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Paula S. Saunders, Asst. Public Defender, Glenna Joyce Reeves, Asst. Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., William A. Hatch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
The juvenile appellant in this case appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained after an allegedly unlawful stop. We affirm.
According to the evidence presented at the hearing on appellant's motion to suppress, Officer Crumpler of the Tallahassee Police Department received a radio call from a police investigator at approximately 12:15 a.m. on April 6, 1988, advising him to be on the lookout for a black male walking north on Macomb Street in Tallahassee, believed to be holding illegal narcotics. Approximately thirty minutes after receiving the call, Crumpler located a black male fitting the detailed description given by the investigator, walking north on Macomb Street with appellant, a female who appeared to be a juvenile. From his experience on the Police Department's "Crack Squad" in that particular area of Tallahassee, Crumpler was aware that drug dealers often used juveniles, sometimes females, to act as "mules," or to hold illegal narcotics for them so that they would not be caught with a large quantity. Crumpler also knew the area to have a reputation for narcotics dealing and other criminal activities, had made numerous drug arrests in the area, and had seen the appellant in the area on a number of occasions. Prior to Crumpler's approach, appellant and the male suspect were walking close together and talking to each other. As Crumpler parked and exited his marked patrol car, the two began to act as if they did not know each other, and walked away from each other in opposite directions.
Crumpler's first course of action was to direct the male suspect to the patrol car and conduct a pat-down search. No narcotics were found on his person. Crumpler then stopped the appellant, who at that point had walked approximately 15 feet away. He inquired as to her name, age, and address, and then "went into the reason why she was being stopped, the mule idea." According to Crumpler, he then asked appellant "if it would be okay if [he] searched her for any illegal narcotics," appellant consented, then reached into her top left-hand shirt pocket for what appeared to be a napkin. Crumpler stopped appellant's hand and removed the napkin, and found it to contain a small bag of crack cocaine. After advising the appellant of her rights, Crumpler placed her under arrest and transported her to the police station for further questioning. During questioning, appellant gave a voluntary admission.
Appellant argues on appeal that Officer Crumpler did not have a founded suspicion of illegal activity and, therefore, that his detention of her was illegal. Appellant further asserts that the illegal stop tainted her consent to be searched, and that the trial court erred in failing to suppress both the evidence seized from her shirt pocket and her subsequent, post-arrest, admission. We disagree.
It is well settled that a police officer must have a well founded and articulable suspicion of criminal activity before conducting an investigatory stop which amounts to a "seizure"--albeit a temporary one--of a person. See section 901.151, Florida Statutes; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). It is equally well settled, however, that not all encounters between police officers and citizens amount to constitutionally protected seizures. To the contrary, a seizure occurs only when, by means of physical force or show of authority, one's freedom of movement has been restrained and when, in light of all the surrounding circumstances,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Golphin v. State
...State v. Wilson, 566 So.2d 585, 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hill v. State, 561 So.2d 1245, 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); J.C.W. v. State, 545 So.2d 306, 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Daniels v. State, 543 So.2d 363, 366 n. 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); McLane v. Rose, 537 So.2d 652, 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Stat......
-
Golphin v. State
...State v. Wilson, 566 So. 2d 585, 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hill v. State, 561 So. 2d 1245, 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); J.C.W. v. State, 545 So. 2d 306, 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Daniels v. State, 543 So. 2d 363, 366 n.3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); McLane v. Rose, 537 So. 2d 652, 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); ......
-
Woodson v. State
...438 So.2d 380 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1330, 79 L.Ed.2d 725 (1984). As stated in the case of J.C.W. v. State, 545 So.2d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 553 So.2d 1165 Where a police officer merely approaches a citizen to ask questions or to check for identificat......
-
Johnson v. State, 91-2922
...a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); J.C.W. v. State, 545 So.2d 306, 307 (1st DCA), rev. den., 553 So.2d 1165 (Fla.1989); Evans v. State, 546 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (cocaine should have been suppressed......