Peabody v. State, 88-02828

Decision Date16 February 1990
Docket NumberNo. 88-02828,88-02828
Citation556 So.2d 826
Parties15 Fla. L. Weekly D501 Brian G. PEABODY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Brad Permar, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

SCHOONOVER, Judge.

The appellant, Brian G. Peabody, challenges an order denying a motion to suppress certain evidence seized from him. After the trial court denied the appellant's motion to suppress, he pled nolo contendere to the charge of possession of a controlled substance and reserved his right to appeal the court's order. The court accepted the appellant's plea, adjudicated him guilty, and placed him on probation. We find that the trial court erred by denying the motion and, accordingly, reverse.

At the hearing on the appellant's motion, the parties stipulated to the facts set forth in the motion. According to the motion, this incident arose out of a surveillance operation being conducted in a neighborhood known for its drug activity. The appellant, the only white male in the area, was observed talking to several other males. He subsequently approached a man in an automobile which was parked in a lighted parking lot. After the man extended his open hand, palm up, toward the appellant, the officer who observed this activity, but who did not see anything passing between the two men, requested the assistance of uniformed officers in the area. The officers converged on the men and stopped the appellant. The driver of the automobile fled. One of the officers patted down the appellant and removed a bag containing pills from his pocket.

The trial court denied the appellant's motion to suppress these pills and the statements the appellant gave to the officers. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the subsequent judgment and sentence.

The appellant contends that the facts and circumstances surrounding his detention did not support a founded suspicion of criminal activity. The appellee contends that the officer had probable cause to arrest the appellant and that the search was incident to a lawful arrest. We agree with the appellant.

Before a law enforcement officer may temporarily detain a person for purposes of investigation, circumstances must reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. § 901.151, Fla.Stat. (1987). Although such a detention may be based upon something less than probable cause, it cannot be based upon mere or bare suspicion of criminal activity. Coladonato v. State,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Johnson v. State, 91-2922
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 10, 1992
    ...3d DCA 1992); Bolinger v. State, 576 So.2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Dames v. State, 566 So.2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Peabody v. State, 556 So.2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Gipson. Cf. Winters v. State, 578 So.2d 5, 6 (2d DCA), rev. den., 589 So.2d 292 (Fla.1991) (temporary detention justified ......
  • Rinehart v. State, 2D99-4642.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 29, 2000
    ...observed by the officer when those circumstances are interpreted in the light of the officer's knowledge." Peabody v. State, 556 So.2d 826, 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Finally, then, we must determine whether the facts known to the deputy supported a founded suspicion that Mr. Rinehart was loit......
  • Hills v. State, 91-3036
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 22, 1993
    ...a bicycle, and later rejoin the bicyclist in a nearby cemetery which was without streetlights not founded suspicion); Peabody v. State, 556 So.2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (approaching a car stopped in a crime area whose driver has his hand extended, palm up, did not create founded suspicion);......
  • KGM v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 8, 2002
    ...reasonable suspicion where the circumstances were a piling on of inferences derived from otherwise legal conduct. See Peabody v. State, 556 So.2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Mosley v. State, 519 So.2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); King v. State, 521 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); State v. Hoover, 520 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT