Smalls v. State, 90-02533
| Decision Date | 03 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-02533,90-02533 |
| Citation | 581 So.2d 1003 |
| Parties | Alvin E. SMALLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 581 So.2d 1003, 16 Fla. L. Week. D1770 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John S. Lynch, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Carol M. Dittmar, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
We reverse defendant's conviction for possession of cocaine and the denial of his motion to suppress cocaine found in a matchbox during a search of his pocket.
Defendant was a patron at a pool hall for which a warrant had been issued to search for cocaine and certain currency, the warrant having been based upon information that the pool hall owner had been involved in drug transactions from his residence which was attached to the pool hall. Upon executing the warrant, the officers ordered the twenty to thirty-five persons present, including defendant, onto the floor face down and handcuffed them, except for the owner and a woman sitting with the owner. Upon feeling a small matchbox in defendant's pocket during a patdown of him and apparently rattling the box while it was in the pocket, an officer searched defendant, removed the box, and discovered crack cocaine in it. The officer testified,
again looking toward officer safety, I noticed in his pants pocket, left front pants pocket, there was a box, which I rattled. And based on my experience in narcotics, this indicated to me that it was the type that is--I have seen used before; a small matchbox in this case. Removed it from his pocket and it contained three rocks of what tested positive as crack cocaine.
The officer did not testify that before he removed the box he believed it contained cocaine. In view of the constitutional proscription against unlawful searches, we are constrained from speculating from the officer's testimony that he had had such a belief. In any event, even if his testimony were to be construed as indicating that before removing the box from defendant's pocket he suspected that it contained cocaine, that suspicion would have arisen not from the patdown but from rattling the box which was an impermissible search. See Henderson v. State, 535 So.2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Nor did the officer testify that he suspected defendant was armed. Thus, since the search was unlawful because it was not shown to have been with probable cause, we need not decide whether the initial detention of defendant and the patdown were justified. See Piediscalzo v. State, 549 So.2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T.P. v. State, 90-490
...the small (hard) objects in his pockets were weapons. In a recent decision of the Second District Court of Appeal, Smalls v. State, 581 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), the officer testified that in doing a pat-down of the defendant "looking toward officer safety", he noticed a matchbox in de......
-
Harris v. State, 5D00-2505.
...connection between him and the illegal activity that had allegedly occurred at the property being searched. Smalls v. State, 581 So.2d 1003, 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The record before us contains no such evidence. To the contrary, the evidence suggests nothing more than Harris just happened......
-
Howard v. State
...See Hamilton v. State, 612 So.2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The shaking of the canister was an impermissible search. See Smalls v. State, 581 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Even if the officers were justified in shaking the film canister, the additional information obtained by hearing the soun......
-
Allen v. State, 90-02536
...as was the temporary detention of defendant, see Wilson v. State, 547 So.2d 215, 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Compare Smalls v. State, 581 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (a search warrant authorizing the search on particular premises of persons reasonably believed to be connected with the suspec......