Stanley v. State, 75--639
| Decision Date | 25 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--639,75--639 |
| Citation | 327 So.2d 243 |
| Parties | Michael Damien STANLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, and Steven H. Denman, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant contests the denial of a motion to suppress as evidence the marijuana and controlled substance paraphernalia which he was charged with unlawfully possessing. The point was preserved for appeal at the time of the entry of a plea of nolo contendere. State v. Ashby, Fla.1971, 245 So.2d 225.
At 12:20 a.m. on October 20, 1974, Deputy Halvorsen and Special Deputy Bissonette of the Lee County Sheriff's Department were dispatched to Daniels Road to check 'speeding autos and intoxicated juveniles in the area.' Upon arriving in the darkened area of Daniels Road, the deputies observed an unusually large amount of traffic for the area. They parked off the side of the road with their headlights shining across the road. Daniels Road was unpaved at this point, but the speed limit was 55 miles per hour.
The vehicle in which appellant rode as a passenger was one of several cars that passed by going in an easterly direction. The car was estimated to be travelling at 40 to 45 miles per hour. Deputy Halvorsen noticed a 'white female' sitting in the front passenger seat who pointed toward the marked patrol car. Thereupon, he pulled out and followed the car for about a half mile and then stopped it.
In his police report, Deputy Halvorsen stated that his reason for stopping the vehicle was that it 'appeared to have no destination.' In a deposition he testified that they decided to follow the car when the young lady 'pointed to us or froze when she saw us.' At the suppression hearing, Halvorsen stated his reason was to ascertain the identities of the persons and to give the driver a warning about his speed.
There were three people in the car. Appellant was in the back seat. As the car stopped, the deputies believed they saw something thrown out the rear window. They found a plastic baggie containing marijuana and a warm pipe in some bushes a short distance from the car. The court determined that the officers had reasonable and probable cause to stop the vehicle and held that the evidence was lawfully seized.
This appeal turns on whether the deputies had a right to stop the automobile without a warrant. If the stop was valid, there was no basis to suppress the evidence. State v. Nittolo, Fla.1975, 317 So.2d 748.
This court has held that there are circumstances short of probable cause which would justify the stopping of a vehicle. State v. Othen, Fla.App.2d, 1974, 300 So.2d 732. In Adams v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1974, 295 So.2d 114, which was also an automobile case, this court said:
'. . . We are dealing here with an emerging area of law which, since Terry v. Ohio, 1 has made it clear that there is a middle ground between the pretextual arrest and an arrest with probable cause. . . .'
Under Terry, a temporary detention is permissible if the facts available to the officer at the time would warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate. Anything less 'would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches.' Terry v. Ohio, supra.
None of the circumstances mentioned by the officers were legally sufficient to justify the stopping of the vehicle in which appellant was a passenger. The only possible justification was suggested by the court at the conclusion of Deputy Halvorsen's direct examination when the following colloquy occurred:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Oliver
...DCA 1978); Smith v. State, 333 So.2d 91 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); Riley v. State, 266 So.2d 173 (Fla.4th DCA 1972). Contra: Stanley v. State, 327 So.2d 243 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). Only when the police begin to conduct an illegal search can a subsequent abandonment of property be held involuntary as be......
-
Carter v. State
...we do not agree that these additional observations increased the reasonableness of the officers' suspicion. See Stanley v. State, 327 So.2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (officers dispatched to investigate report of "speeding autos and intoxicated juveniles" did not have founded suspicion to stop ......
-
State v. Arnold
...Moreover, it is not uncommon for innocent individuals to appear nervous when they see or talk to a sheriff's deputy. See Stanley v. State, 327 So.2d 243 (Fla.2d DCA), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 604 (Fla.1976). Thus, we do not think the court erred in concluding that Deputies Brant and Campbell......
-
Freyre v. State, 77-1267
...voluntary. See, e. g., State v. Nittolo, 317 So.2d 748 (Fla.1975); Kraemer v. State, 60 So.2d 615 (Fla.1952); Stanley v. State, 327 So.2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); State v. Jackson, 240 So.2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). The question of voluntariness must, of course, be determined by the facts of e......