Monroe v. State, 88-2067
| Citation | 543 So.2d 298,14 Fla. L. Weekly 1047 |
| Decision Date | 27 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-2067,88-2067 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1047 Dwight Maurice MONROE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Barbara C. Davis, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Laura Griffin and Robin Compton, Asst. Attys. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, the appellant pleaded nolo contendere to one count of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and one count of carrying a concealed weapon. Appellant contends on appeal that the evidence was found as the result of an illegal search. 1 We agree and reverse.
Officer Escaravage, the only witness to testify at the suppression hearing, was on a special drug task force the night he arrested defendant, who was a passenger in a vehicle that repeatedly circled the blocks around a lounge known for high crime and drug trafficking. This aroused the officer's suspicion and he began to follow the vehicle. He conceded that he had no indication of criminal activity by the occupants of the car, but his suspicions caused him to follow the car, waiting for an opportunity to make a stop. Finally, the officer observed a bald tire on the vehicle, so he stopped the vehicle to find out the identity of the driver and to advise him of the traffic violation. The occupants were removed from the vehicle. As defendant exited the car, he threw a coin purse and pill bottle on the ground under the car. Both containers held rock cocaine. The driver gave permission to search the vehicle, which search yielded the handgun.
Appellant argues that stopping the vehicle for a bald tire was only a pretext for a search, because the officer's real motivation was to determine if the occupants in the car were doing anything illegal and there was no founded suspicion of illegal activity. In Kehoe v. State, 521 So.2d 1094 (Fla.1988) the court resolved the conflict between the various district courts and adopted the approach of United States v. Smith, 799 F.2d 704 (11th Cir.1986) to so-called "pretextual" traffic stops, holding that the subjective intent of the officer in making the stop was not controlling. Instead, "[t]he existence of a fourth amendment violation 'turns on an objective assessment of the officer's actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time.' " (Citation omitted). Kehoe, 521...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State
...officer would have stopped the vehicle absent an additional invalid purpose. Kehoe v. State, 521 So.2d 1094 (Fla.1988); Monroe v. State, 543 So.2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); see also, United States v. Smith, 799 F.2d 704 (11th Cir.1986), Cf., Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 98 S.Ct. 171......
-
State v. Holland, 94-856
...of the application of the reasonable officer test to the instant case is the Daniel court's express recognition of Monroe v. State, 543 So.2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) and Hills v. State, 629 So.2d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) as in accord with Daniel 's reasonable officer test. Daniel, 665 So.2d ......
-
Hills v. State, 91-3036
...involved in drug investigation, held pretextual, where real reason for stop was to check for possession of drugs); Monroe v. State, 543 So.2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (stop was unlawful where state failed to carry burden of proving that reasonable officer would have made stop for a bald tire,......
-
State v. Daniel
...an illegal act into a legal one. The district courts are in general accord with the analysis outlined above. In Monroe v. State, 543 So.2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), the Fifth District addressed a situation where an officer on narcotics patrol stopped the defendant because the latter's vehicl......