Ramirez v. State, 93-03588

Citation654 So.2d 1222
Decision Date05 May 1995
Docket NumberNo. 93-03588,93-03588
Parties20 Fla. L. Weekly D1119 Basilio RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and D.P. Chanco, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Brenda S. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

FRANK, Chief Judge.

Basilio Ramirez appeals from his conviction for possession of cocaine, contending the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We agree and reverse.

Police officers from the Fort Myers Police Department observed Ramirez approach a man and hand him money in exchange for a substance they suspected might be drugs. Although the officers believed they possessed a founded suspicion to stop and question Ramirez, they chose not to do so. Instead, as Ramirez was departing on his bicycle, the police alerted fellow officers stationed nearby that Ramirez was heading in their direction and might be in possession of drugs.

Ramirez proceeded to a nearby farmer's market, where he entered a public restroom. Within minutes he walked out of the restroom and returned to his bike. He retrieved a small bag containing an aluminum beer can. The police watched as Ramirez returned to the restroom, entered one of the toilet stalls and closed the door. They suspected that Ramirez was smoking crack, but without perceiving any unlawful activity or detecting smoke or the scent of burning cocaine, the police rushed into the restroom and entered Ramirez's stall. Caught in possession of four pieces of crack cocaine, Ramirez was arrested and charged. He moved to suppress the cocaine on the grounds that his reasonable expectation of privacy in an enclosed toilet stall in a public restroom was violated. Based upon two Florida decisions "which [have] treated the toilet problem here," the trial court disagreed with Ramirez and denied the motion to suppress.

The weight of authority runs counter to the trial court's ruling. As soon as Ramirez entered the closed toilet stall he had a legitimate expectation of privacy which was unlawfully invaded when the police, acting prematurely, seized him with no more than a suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. See Ward v. State, 636 So.2d 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Michael R. Flaherty, Jr., Annotation, Search and Seizure: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Public Restroom, 74 A.L.R.4th 508 (1989). Viewed in its entirety, the evidence shows that law enforcement witnessed Ramirez engage in a transaction which led the officers to believe Ramirez had just purchased drugs. Given the totality of the circumstances, the officers would have been justified in temporarily detaining Ramirez for a brief investigation. See State v. Clark, 605 So.2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). We cannot conclude, however, that the observance of an exchange, coupled with a hunch that the suspect intends to smoke cocaine through a beer can, are sufficient to reach a finding of probable cause. See Doney v. State, 648 So.2d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see also, Banks v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Kraft
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 19 Agosto 2020
    ...she] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."); Ramirez v. State , 654 So. 2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) ("As soon as Ramirez entered the closed toilet stall he had a legitimate expectation of privacy ...."). Thus, the bu......
  • Revels v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 27 Diciembre 1995
    ...appears to have been an isolated event by officers whose training and experience are not described in the opinion. In Ramirez v. State, 654 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, No. 85,836, 662 So.2d 933 (Fla. Oct. 11, 1995), an officer observed a similar currency exchange that was not s......
  • State v. Powers, 4D07-3974.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 15 Octubre 2008
    ...expectation of privacy under these circumstances, if any, is certainly substantially reduced. We have considered Ramirez v. State, 654 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and deem it inapposite. There, the police saw Ramirez exchange money for something and then take a beer can with him to a res......
  • State v. Kraft
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims
    • 19 Agosto 2020
    ...... private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be. constitutionally protected."); Ramirez v. State , 654 So.2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) ("As. soon as Ramirez entered the closed toilet stall he had a. legitimate ......
  • 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