Simpkins v. State, 91-732
| Decision Date | 08 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-732,91-732 |
| Citation | 613 So.2d 572 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Week. D499 Markett Devon SIMPKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James A. Johnston, Pensacola, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Bradley R. Bischoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant Markett Simpkins pled nolo contendere to a charge of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, expressly reserving his right to appeal the trial court's ruling on his motion to suppress. We reverse.
On October 11, 1990 at about 8:30 p.m., Deputy Sheriff Henry L. Lewis, Jr. was on a routine patrol of the area around Oaks Tavern, an area known for narcotics activity, when an unknown person came up to him and told him that four black males standing around a red car with a T-top were selling crack cocaine outside of the Oaks Tavern. According to the informant, the person holding the crack was wearing blue jeans and a white T-shirt with a picture on it and had the crack in a pill bottle in his left pocket. Based on the informant's tip and the fact that several minutes prior to the encounter with the informant he had seen a car and individuals meeting the informant's description at the location that the informant had indicated, Deputy Lewis called Officer Gary Willis to accompany him to the Oaks Tavern. When they arrived, the four suspects were still by the car. The officers searched the suspects and found crack cocaine in a pill box in appellant's pocket.
Appellant filed a motion to suppress the crack cocaine on the ground that the officers had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to stop and search appellant.
At the hearing, Deputy Lewis admitted that he could not vouch for the informant's reliability. When asked if he saw any contraband being passed between any people or saw any suspicious activity, Deputy Lewis responded: He indicated that the suspects were just standing around the car and were not violating any laws as far as he could tell.
The trial court found that the officers had a reasonable suspicion or founded suspicion that appellant was engaged in criminal activity and could detain appellant, conduct an investigatory inquiry, and conduct a patdown search based on Officer Lewis' observations and knowledge of the area, the informant's tip, and the officer's subsequent observation of movement by appellant. The court further found that at the point where the bottle was discovered in the patdown search, confirming the earlier information given by the informant, the level of reasonable suspicion was transformed to that of probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of appellant's person. The court denied the motion to suppress.
We reverse the trial court's order denying the motion to suppress...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Santana v. Henry
... ... the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action," Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 22 L.Ed.2d 281 (1969), we reverse ... ...
-
Cronin v. State
...not provide the requisite basis of a reasonable suspicion, and the tip itself did not exhibit indicia of reliability. Simpkins v. State, 613 So.2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In fact, the record contains no corroboration of the incriminating portion of the tip. Id. REVERSED. ERVIN and MINER, J......
-
Butts v. State, 93-1478
...and that they did not observe the appellant engaged in any illegal, or even suspicious, activity before stopping him. Simpkins v. State, 613 So.2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The officers corroborated only easily obtained facts, such as the appellant's clothing, appearance and location, and fa......
-
Lane v. State, 91-3406
...the stop of the automobile he was driving. We agree and reverse his conviction and sentence on the authority of Simpkins v. State, 613 So.2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Sapp v. State, 592 So.2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Swanson v. State, 591 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); and Key v. State, 553 ......