Payne v. State, 94-00996
| Decision Date | 12 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-00996,94-00996 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1155 Richard W. PAYNE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Brad Permar, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Tonja R. Vickers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Richard W. Payne appeals the denial of his motion to suppress a firearm. Because we agree with Payne's contention that the state failed to establish the validity of the initial stop, we reverse.
At approximately 11:45 p.m., Officer Horrigan was on patrol in an unmarked car and observed three people walking through a convenience store parking lot. The officer testified that they appeared to be either arguing or intoxicated, but he provided no details about their behavior. Officer Horrigan decided to watch the three and drove around the store to get a better view. While he did this, the three crossed the parking lot. The officer observed them get into two separate cars, at least one of which was already partially occupied. The other car, a Cadillac, backed out of the parking lot and pulled into the street. Before the car left the parking lot, Officer Horrigan radioed for a marked unit to stop it. After it left the parking lot, Officer Horrigan saw the car spin its tires as it approached and then stopped at a red light.
Officer Douglas responded to the call. When he saw the car, it was being driven with the headlights off but they were turned on after another vehicle signalled. Officer Douglas then stopped the Cadillac based on the radio request. After the stop, both officers observed the barrel of the firearm protruding out from under the passenger seat in which Payne had been sitting. Payne was arrested and charged with carrying a concealed firearm.
Payne moved to suppress the firearm and argued that the officers lacked a founded suspicion to stop the Cadillac. Payne had standing to challenge the initial stop of the car. See Wulff v. State, 533 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), approved, Nelson v. State, 578 So.2d 694 (Fla.1991). Following an evidentiary hearing, his motion was denied. Payne entered a plea of no contest, reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion.
In order to stop a moving vehicle, an officer must have a founded suspicion of criminal activity or cause to believe that he observed a traffic violation. Rollins v. State, 578 So.2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Here, there was no evidence to establish a founded suspicion of criminal activity. Officer Horrigan decided to stop the car before it even left the parking lot because he thought the three people might be intoxicated. There was no testimony that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...must have had a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity or cause to believe that there was a traffic violation. See Payne v. State, 654 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In support of this contention, Smith states that Colangelo testified at the suppression hearing that he was instructed t......
-
State v. Proctor
...without headlights for a brief period of time was sufficient to warrant the stop. The trial court concluded, based on Payne v. State, 654 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), that driving without headlights for ten seconds was not enough and granted Proctor's motion to suppress, explaining:And ba......