State v. Brooks, 72--870
| Decision Date | 25 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--870,72--870 |
| Citation | 281 So.2d 55 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James Elwood BROOKS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Judge C. Luckey, Public Defender, and Perry A. Little, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellee.
The state interlocutorily appeals, pursuant to F.S. § 924.071, the granting of a motion to suppress. Patrolmen R. D. Bevan and J. D. Saunders of the Tampa Police Department were cruising in the 2600 block in the City of Tampa in the early morning hours of July 29, 1972. They heard a sound like a gunshot in back of them but observed no one on the street. They went around the block and observed two black males sitting on the steps at 2610 Twenty-second Street. They walked up to the men and asked them if they had been there long and if they heard a shot. The men answered they had not. The officers then decided to frisk the subjects and found on appellee Brooks a .22 caliber pistol. The trial judge granted the motion to suppress the evidence as the fruit of an unconstitutional search.
The state has cited several cases, some of which have been decided since the enactment of the 'stop-and-frisk law' and those cases correctly cite the law as it is in Florida. The facts in this case appear to measure up to the standards set in those cases and certainly comport with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Thomas v. State, 250 So.2d 15 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1971); State v. Padilla, 235 So.2d 309 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1970) and other cases.
It is apparent that no hard and fast rule can be adopted which will in every instance guide the police as to when they may or may not frisk. It is clear, however, that they may not frisk simply because they saw two men sitting on the steps at 4:00 o'clock in the morning. This is true even though the officers were in a 'high crime' area. The facts which indicate to police officers a probability of illegal activity must point more directly to the suspects who are subjected to the seizure than would those facts. If this were sufficient to justify a search anyone in such a so-called 'high crime' area would be subject to a search just by virtue of his presence.
We must note, however, that Florida law does give police officers justification for such searches in circumstances where the 'scene' is more localized, such as a bar. See, State v. Woodard, 280 So.2d 700, opinion filed July 25, 1973 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1973); State v. Profera, 239 So.2d 867 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1970); State v. Holmes, 256 So.2d 32 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1971); State v. Padilla, Supra.
A 'high crime' neighborhood is not in itself a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hairston
...*1 (Nov. 1, 2017) (approximately one block); Basiak at 156, 8 Ill.Dec. 332, 365 N.E.2d 570 (around the corner); State v. Brooks , 281 So.2d 55, 56 (Fla.App.1973) (around the block); People v. Lee , 48 Ill.2d 272, 274, 269 N.E.2d 488 (1971) (about two blocks).{¶ 44} Even in cases in which th......
-
State v. Ramos
...U.S. 1, 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972); State v. Brooks, 281 So.2d 55 (Fla.2d DCA 1973); State v. Woodard, 280 So.2d 700 (Fla.2d DCA 1973). This limited basis for, and scope of search is tailored specifically f......
-
Cox v. State
...defendant and his companion, the first people the officer had seen on the streets for at least an hour and a half); State v. Brooks, 281 So.2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). Next, we consider Appellant's challenge to the search of Appellant's truck and the scope of the search. Generally, a law enfo......
-
Phillips v. State
...the officer is alone at the time of the encounter. (See, e. g., Wilson v. State, supra; Williams v. State, supra; State v. Brooks, 281 So.2d 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).) Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find the facts here justified both the temporary detention of appellant's ve......