Simpson v. State, 2D01-4778.

• Decision Date: 31 January 2003
• Docket Number: No. 2D01-4778.,2D01-4778.
• Citation: 835 So.2d 394
• Parties: Michael D. SIMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

835 So.2d 394

Michael D. SIMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D01-4778.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 31, 2003.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Howardene Garrett, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and C. Suzanne Bechard, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

DAVIS, Judge.

Michael D. Simpson appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine and carrying a concealed weapon, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We agree and reverse.

The charges against Simpson arose from an incident in which a St. Petersburg Police officer observed a beige pickup truck parked near an abandoned house. As the officer approached, he saw Simpson, who was sitting in the vehicle, reach under the seat with his left hand. When the officer exited his vehicle, Simpson exited the truck and attempted to light a cigarette. The officer approached Simpson and inquired what he was doing. Simpson responded that a "friend" had just gotten out of the truck and walked down the street. The officer did not observe anyone walking nearby.

As they talked further, the officer observed that Simpson had left the driver's door of the truck open. Upon looking into the truck through the open door, the officer saw the turn signal lever hanging by wires from the steering column. Having investigated numerous stolen vehicles that had been taken by compromising the ignition system through the steering column, the officer suspected that the pickup truck was stolen. Consequently, the officer again asked Simpson what he was doing at this location. Simpson responded that a "guy" had just gotten out of the truck and walked down the street. Concluding that Simpson had given him inconsistent stories regarding the "friend" and the "guy," and suspecting that the truck was stolen, the officer placed Simpson in the rear seat of the police vehicle. Although Simpson initially gave the officer an incorrect name, the officer ultimately determined Simpson's identity and discovered that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. After taking Simpson into custody, the officer searched the interior of the truck. Although he found that the ignition system had not been compromised, the officer did find a crack cocaine pipe in plain view and a machete under the seat.

Simpson moved to suppress these items, alleging that the officer improperly detained him without reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed. When the trial court denied the motion, Simpson pleaded no contest reserving his right to appeal the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress.

Our review of an order denying a motion to suppress is a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Setzler, 667 So.2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We review the trial court's factual findings by an abuse of discretion standard and its application of the law to the facts on a...