State v. Bell, 79-1613
| Decision Date | 01 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1613,79-1613 |
| Citation | 382 So.2d 119 |
| Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Andre Dole BELL, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Janet Reno, State's Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State's Atty., for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Before NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ., and CHARLES A. CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
The state appeals from an order suppressing tangible evidence. We find that the questioned evidence was improvidently suppressed and reverse.
The testimony before the trial court was uncontradicted and unrefuted. It showed that police officers of the City of Miami observed the defendant at 4:30 a. m. peering into the first floor window of an apartment from an alley. The residential neighborhood in which he was observed was known by the police officers as a high crime area. No other persons were present in the area. The police left their vehicle and approached the defendant. No verbal communication passed. The defendant turned and ran. The officers pursued and ultimately found him hiding behind some trash containers. Officers detained the defendant and asked him his name. He complied and, with the identification obtained, the officers learned by radio that there was an outstanding bench warrant for his arrest. The defendant was then taken to police headquarters where he was arrested. A search of his person produced cocaine. This is the tangible evidence ordered suppressed by the trial court.
The state contends the officers had articulable founded suspicion to stop and detain the defendant. Some of the factors enumerated by the court in State v. Stevens, 354 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) which may be evaluated by police officers to reasonably suggest a suspect's possible commission, the existence, or imminence, of a crime are:
The time; the day of the week; the location; the physical appearance of the suspect; the behavior of the suspect; the appearance and manner of operation of any vehicle involved; anything incongruous or unusual in the situation as interpreted in the light of the officer's knowledge.
354 So.2d at 1247. To this list may be added, the factor of flight. Flight from police evidences guilt. Gibson v. State, 368 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Monnette v. United States, 299 F.2d 847 (5th Cir. 1962). "Flight invites pursuit and colors conduct which hitherto has appeared innocent." United States v. Pope, 561 F.2d 663, 668 (6th Cir. 1977).
In this case, the conduct of the defendant at the time and place, an area known for its high crime rate, coupled with his flight, afforded the officers their articulable founded suspicion necessary to stop and detain him as contemplated under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lige v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...justify the belief that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity" warranting an investigatory stop.Id. (quoting State v. Bell, 382 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)).In the instant case, as Defendant asserts, Officer Grantham was called to the scene because Officer Baker thought it was "u......
-
Hernandez v. State
...the situation as interpreted in the light of the officer's knowledge. To this list may be added, the factor of flight. State v. Bell, 382 So.2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (quoting State v. Stevens, 354 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)); see also Jenkins v. State, 685 So.2d 918, 920 (Fla. 1st DCA ......
-
Brown v. State
...involvement in car theft; occupants were therefore reasonably detained pending check for outstanding arrest warrants); State v. Bell, 382 So.2d 119, 119-20 (Fla.App.1980) (conduct of defendant in peering into first floor window of an apartment in a high crime area at 4:30 a.m., and in attem......
-
Byndloss v. State
...of driver's history, registration, and for outstanding warrants is part of the normal procedure for a traffic stop); State v. Bell, 382 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980) (police are authorized to determine if there is an outstanding warrant for arrest during stop); Clark v. State, 171 I......