Ramsey v. State
| Decision Date | 11 August 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D99-3504.,2D99-3504. |
| Citation | 766 So.2d 397 |
| Parties | Isaac RAMSEY, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ann Pfeiffer Howe, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
In this appeal of his conviction of possession of cocaine, Isaac Ramsey challenges the order denying his motion to suppress the cocaine found in his automobile. The order found that there was probable cause to arrest Ramsey, and therefore, the stop and search of his vehicle were proper. We reverse.1
At the hearing on Ramsey's motion to suppress, Sergeant Charles Schwemley of the street narcotics unit of the St. Petersburg Police Department testified that he established surveillance of the house at 1926 12th Avenue South. The closest he could get without being detected allowed him to observe only the front of the house. Sergeant Schwemley proceeded to explain his observations of fifteen incidents over three separate days during which nearly identical activity occurred. Specifically, a person would approach the house, speak briefly with a male who was either in the front yard or at the front door, the two would go around to the east side of the house out of Sergeant Schwemley's view for fifteen to thirty seconds, and the visitor would then return into Sergeant Schwemley's view and depart. During only one of these incidents, which occurred on the first day of surveillance, did Sergeant Schwemley actually observe a visitor hand the man at the house cash and the man hand the visitor pieces of what Sergeant Schwemley believed were crack cocaine out of a plastic baggie. Ramsey was the next to the last visitor Sergeant Schwemley observed on the third day of surveillance. Sergeant Schwemley testified that Ramsey had nothing in his hands as he exited his car and went to the east side of the house for fifteen to twenty seconds, but he had one hand clenched when he returned to his car and appeared to be putting items into his pants pocket. Sergeant Schwemley never saw Ramsey talking to or otherwise making contact with anyone at the house. Ramsey was stopped after he left the house, crack cocaine was found in his automobile, and he was arrested.
Law enforcement lacked a founded suspicion, let alone probable cause, to stop Ramsey because Sergeant Schwemley did not observe any transaction between Ramsey and the man at the house. See Berard v. State, 731 So.2d 768 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
; Tinson v. State, 650 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In Berard, an officer was staking out a house that he had been informed was a pretty active place for drug sales. Before Berard was stopped, a vehicle with several occupants drove up to the house, one of the occupants went inside the house for thirty or forty seconds, came out, and left. The vehicle was stopped and an arrest was made for possession of marijuana. Berard and another man then drove up, went inside the house for thirty or forty seconds, came out, and left. They were stopped, and a consensual search produced cocaine and paraphernalia. During the surveillance operation, nine traffic stops were made resulting in five arrests. In holding that law enforcement did not demonstrate a founded suspicion to stop Berard, this court noted that the surveillance officer had no information that Berard was involved in illegal activity, he could not see what happened inside the house, he saw no money in Berard's hands as Berard went in the house, and he saw nothing illegal on Berard as he came out of the house. "[T]he inescapable fact was that no officer witnessed or heard anything to indicate that Berard was committing, had committed or was about to commit a crime." 731 So.2d at 769.
In Tinson, a house was under surveillance based on tips that drug dealing was taking place. During one hour, the surveillance officers observed eight...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawk v. State, 5D02-3734.
...expressly asked for a finding of dispositiveness and it was the trial court's duty to thereafter rule. See Ramsey v. State, 766 So.2d 397, 397 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ("It is the trial court's duty to announce whether preserved issues are dispositive.") (citing Rust v. State, 742 So.2d 471 ......
-
BLUDSAW v. State, 2D01-3574.
...a location where drug activity is suspected does not give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Ramsey v. State, 766 So.2d 397, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Martin v. State, 521 So.2d 260, 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Mosley v. State, 519 So.2d 58, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA Because the police la......
-
Fuegos v. State, Case No. 5D18-3637
...a finding of dispositiveness, it is the trial court's duty to thereafter rule. See Hawk, 848 So. 2d at 478 (citing Ramsey v. State, 766 So. 2d 397, 397 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ("It is the trial court's duty to announce whether preserved issues are dispositive.")); see also Everett v. State, ......
-
Simmons v. State, 2D04-2491.
...necessary in this case because the denial of the motion to suppress ... in this possession case is dispositive." Ramsey v. State, 766 So.2d 397, 397 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Accordingly, the ruling on Simmons' motion to suppress is properly before this court for Simmons argues that the tria......