Rollins v. State, 90-02009
| Decision Date | 01 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-02009,90-02009 |
| Citation | 578 So.2d 850,16 Fla. L. Weekly 1186 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | William Paul ROLLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 578 So.2d 850, 16 Fla. L. Week. 1186 |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Brad Permar, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carol Cobourn Asbury, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant, William Rollins, convicted of possession of cocaine and paraphernalia, argues on appeal that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress because the evidence was discovered as the result of an illegal stop and search.
Officer Martin testified that he stopped a white pickup truck containing two individuals in Winter Haven in the early morning hours. He stopped the truck because he noticed that its tail and brake lights did not work. As he pulled it over, he noted that the brake lights again failed to operate. He asked the driver, a white female named Mary Rollins, for identification. He discovered that her license had been suspended and that she had six active felony warrants. He placed her in custody and asked her passenger, appellant, for identification. Appellant initially gave an alias. The officer discovered active warrants for his arrest also. The officer then arrested appellant and, in the subsequent search of the truck, found cocaine and paraphernalia in the heater vent on the passenger side. He also found appellant's wallet in that heater vent.
Appellant was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of paraphernalia and filed a motion to suppress on the grounds that the officer did not have cause to stop the truck. The court denied the motion and appellant pled nolo contendere, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion.
In order to stop a moving vehicle, an officer must have a founded suspicion of criminal activity (Sumlin v. State, 433 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)) or cause to believe that he observed a traffic violation. Here, there was some question as to whether Officer Martin had cause to stop the truck for inoperable brake and tail lights because several witnesses testified that both before and after the truck had been impounded pursuant to the arrests, the brake and tail lights were working.
The trial court declined to determine this issue, ruling that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Frierson
...holding that an arrest warrant "does not validate an illegal detention." Frierson, 851 So.2d at 300 (quoting Rollins v. State, 578 So.2d 850, 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)); see also Solino v. State, 763 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Kimbrough v. State, 539 So.2d 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The Fou......
-
Frierson v. State
...fact that the officer subsequently discover[s] an outstanding warrant does not validate an illegal detention." Rollins v. State, 578 So.2d 850, 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). More recently, in Solino v. State, 763 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), we ruled that a stop of a moving vehicle based on an......
-
Mays v. State
...be entitled to the suppression of the cocaine because it was discovered as the result of an illegal encounter. See Rollins v. State, 578 So.2d 850, 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Libby v. State, 561 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Frierson v. State, 851 So.2d 293, 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); but see S......
-
State v. Eubanks
...officer had cause to stop appellee's car based on a reasonable belief that he observed a traffic violation. E.g., Rollins v. State, 578 So.2d 850, 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Appellant state relies on State v. Russell, 557 So.2d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), and State v. Taswell, 560 So.2d 257 (Fla. ......