Kimball v. State, 4D00-1095.
Decision Date | 12 December 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 4D00-1095.,4D00-1095. |
Citation | 801 So.2d 264 |
Parties | Gregory KIMBALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Glenn H. Mitchell, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Gary K. Milligan, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Kimball's conviction for possession of a controlled substance, ecstacy, is reversed. Upon a de novo review of the record1, we conclude that it was error to deny the defense motion to suppress physical evidence seized in the search of Kimball's vehicle.
The essential facts are undisputed. On November 2, 1999, the sheriff's office received information from an unknown informant that Kimball was about to deliver ecstacy pills. The informant described Kimball and his automobile in detail. The informant said Kimball was presently en route to the Amoco gas station where he intended to deliver between 400 and 600 ecstacy pills to unknown persons at nine p.m.
Deputies responded to the tip by positioning themselves in unmarked cars in the gas station parking lot. As predicted, Kimball entered the Amoco station at nine p.m. in a red Mazda MX 3. When he got out of his car, he was immediately seized and the vehicle was searched.
An anonymous tip may give rise to reasonable suspicion to stop or probable cause to search, where the tip is deemed reliable. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990). A tip corroborated by independent police observation of otherwise seemingly innocent acts may exhibit sufficient indicia of reliability depending upon the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 330, 110 S.Ct. 2412; see also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). The reliability of such a tip is evaluated, among other considerations, on its degree of specificity, the extent of corroboration of predicted future conduct, and the significance of the informant's predictions. Id. Compare Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000), with White. In J.L.,2 an anonymous caller informed police that a young black male in a plaid shirt was standing at a bus stop with a gun. Id. at 268, 120 S.Ct. 1375. Officers arrived at the bus stop, frisked J.L., and seized the gun. J.L. had made no threatening or otherwise unusual movements, nor had the officers seen a gun. Id. The Supreme Court found the search illegal, stating that the tip lacked the requisite indicia of reliability as it provided no predictive information. Id. at 274, 120 S.Ct. 1375.
Id. at 331-32, 110 S.Ct. 2412 (citations omitted). The court pointed out that the tip contained details about a third party's future actions and stated, "it is reasonable for police to believe that a person with access to such information is likely to also have access to reliable information about the individual's illegal activities." Id. at 332, 110 S.Ct. 2412; see also Gates, 462 U.S. at 244,103 S.Ct. 2317 ( ).
We note, however, that in White, the predictive information was deemed sufficient to justify a stop based on reasonable suspicion; the resulting search was founded on consent to search given after the investigatory stop. Here, the anonymous informant predicted that Kimball would arrive at the Amoco station at nine p.m. in a red Mazda MX-3. These are innocent details. Nevertheless, in contrast to the tip in J.L., the tip here did include accurate predictions about the suspect's future actions. While someone may predict that a person will stop and get gas, it is unusual for that person to be able to predict the exact time and location that this will occur. Thus, when the deputies observed Kimball drive into the Amoco gas station at nine p.m., this did impart a degree of reliability to the information that we deem sufficient to support an investigative stop. We conclude, however, that on these limited facts and in the absence of exigent circumstances, consent, or incriminating or suspicious circumstances, the law enforcement agents lacked probable cause to seize Kimball and search the car.
We recognize that it is well-established that probable cause to search may be founded on an anonymous tip where there is a fair probability, upon confirmation of the predicted behavior, that contraband will be found. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 246, 103 S.Ct. 2317. However, absent a reliable informant, the less detailed the tip, the more corroboration of future conduct is necessary to support a common sense decision that there is a "fair probability" that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found at the designated place. Id. at 244, 103 S.Ct. 2317. Gates does not authorize findings of probable cause, carte blanche, simply because predicted behavior is subsequently borne out where the observed circumstances are not suspicious.
In U.S. v. Solomon, 728 F.Supp. 1544, 1548 (S.D.Fla.1990), the Court recognized that "[W]here police officers can only corroborate innocent facts of a tip, there can be no probable cause to search unless the innocent facts are, of themselves, suspicious." (emphasis added). There, Judge Gonzalez granted motions to suppress where the sheriff received an anonymous call that Solomon, who was described and his address given, would transport cocaine the next day. The informant said that Solomon would be leaving his residence with the drugs between 6:00 and 9:00 a.m. in a specified vehicle, that a sailboat was docked behind his residence, and that he would travel north, on either interstate highway 95 or 75, accompanied by a described woman. The details as to the residence, sailboat, and vehicle were confirmed and at 6:00 a.m., he left the residence, was joined by the woman passenger, and headed north on the turnpike toward I-75. The vehicle was stopped and Solomon was immediately taken into custody. The court concluded that the officers lacked probable cause for an arrest or search. In doing so, the court correctly recognized that in Gates, the Supreme Court was swayed, not just by corroboration of the anonymous informant's predictions, but also by the suspicious...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Whittle v. State
...establish probable cause for an immediate arrest of Mr. Whittle or for a search of his vehicle without a warrant. See Kimball v. State, 801 So.2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). There is simply no indication that the conversation overheard by the informant was more than "mere rumor," which is insu......
-
Marsdin v. State
...the extent of corroboration of predicted future conduct, and the significance of the informant's predictions. Kimball v. State, 801 So.2d 264, 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 246, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). Here, the anonymous tip, combined with ......
-
Taylor v. City of Riviera Beach
... ... CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida, Appellee ... No. 4D01-251 ... District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District ... ...
-
State v. Gonzalez
...that the officers jumped the gun in making the arrest based solely on the description given to them by Dennison. See Kimball v. State, 801 So.2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Miller v. State, 780 So.2d 151 (Fla. 2d DCA Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's order suppressing Gonzalez......