Moorehead v. State
| Citation | 378 So.2d 123 |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1115,79-1115 |
| Parties | Roy E. MOOREHEAD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, David A. Davis, Asst. Public Defender, and Douglas A. Lockwood, Legal Intern., Bartow, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and James S. Purdy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance and reserved the right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. We reverse.
Around 6:30 p. m. on November 28, 1978, appellant was walking towards a recreation center in Reddington Beach. Appellant was carrying his personal pool cue with him to play pool at the center which was to open in about thirty minutes. The center was located above a city fire station.
When stopped by a police officer and asked for identification, appellant complied by producing his driver's license and blood donor card. Appellant also complied with the officer's request that he accompany the officer to the police station to fill out a field interrogation card. At the station, the officer began admiring appellant's pool cue and asked if he might examine it. Appellant consented and handed it to the officer who began shaking it. He heard something rattling around inside the cue and thought a weapon of some sort might be concealed therein. The officer unscrewed the cue, and observed a piece of paper with something secreted inside. The contents were subsequently determined to be phenobarbital, and appellant was arrested and charged with its possession.
Appellant pleaded not guilty and moved to suppress the phenobarbital. At the suppression hearing, the officer testified that while there had been a purse snatching incident in a neighboring community the day prior to appellant's arrest, he had no suspicion that appellant had committed that or any other crime at the time he stopped him. Indeed, he admitted that it was not at all unusual to see young people in the vicinity of the recreational hall at that time of evening. Nonetheless, the trial judge declined to suppress the evidence on the theory that appellant had consented to the search.
Such conduct by the police as occurred here may not be condoned, and any evidence discovered as a result thereof is tainted and may neither serve as the basis for a criminal charge nor be admissible at trial. Foss v. State, 355 So.2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Taylor v. State, 355 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wells
...742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (opening vehicle to agricultural inspector did not authorize him to slit open bag with knife); Moorehead v. State, 378 So.2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (consent for officer to look at pool cue did not authorize unscrewing of cue to see what was rattling inside); Villari ......
-
Edwards v. State
...286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); 12 Ingram v. State, 364 So.2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). 13 The search was therefore illegal. Moorehead v. State, 378 So.2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); 14 Pirri v. State, 428 So.2d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. den., State v. Pirri, 438 So.2d 834 (Fla.1983). Furthermore, the t......
-
State v. W. O. R., 79-1807
...and knew him as a "thief". While we recognize that any one of these facts alone would not have justified the stop, Moorehead v. State, 378 So.2d 123 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); Parker v. State, 363 So.2d 383 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Vollmer v. State, 337 So.2d 1024 (Fla.2d DCA 1976), together they constit......
-
State v. Thompson, 83-1663
...(Fla.1981); State v. Carney, 423 So.2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Luxenburg v. State, 384 So.2d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Moorehead v. State, 378 So.2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Rose v. State, 369 So.2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA ...