State v. Ecker
| Decision Date | 25 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-02683,88-02683 |
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2514,550 So.2d 545 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2514 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Kevin Howard ECKER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michele Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and D.P. Chanco, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.
The state appeals the trial court's order granting a motion to suppress evidence of illegal drugs and dismissing the charges against Mr. Ecker. We reverse the trial court's order because the illegal drugs were seized only after a constitutionally valid investigation had established probable cause for an arrest. The critical evidence establishing probable cause was developed during a pre-intrusion observation of the illegal contraband which was in open view. Ensor v. State, 403 So.2d 349 (Fla.1981).
The only witness who testified at the suppression hearing was the deputy who arrested Mr. Ecker. The deputy testified that he was on routine patrol in Collier County when he passed the Sugar Shack Tavern at approximately 2 a.m. on April 30, 1988. He pulled into the parking lot adjacent to the tavern in order to patrol the lot. The deputy testified that it was his habit to park his vehicle and patrol the lot on foot.
As he was patrolling the lot, the deputy observed Mr. Ecker and a female companion seated in the front seat of a parked vehicle. He did not know who owned the vehicle or the identity of its occupants. The occupants did not notice his presence. When the deputy was approximately twenty feet from the vehicle, he saw Mr. Ecker with his head pointed in the direction of his lap and his arms positioned such that the deputy believed Mr. Ecker might be using drugs. The female companion was also looking down toward Mr. Ecker's lap.
The deputy approached the vehicle on the driver's side from the rear. The occupants still did not notice his presence. The interior of the vehicle was not lighted. The deputy shined his flashlight down into Mr. Ecker's lap and into the front compartment of the vehicle. He observed a clear plastic bag filled with a white substance in Mr. Ecker's lap and suspected that the bag contained cocaine. He also observed Mr. Ecker in the process of rolling a cigarette and observed a clear plastic bag in Mr. Ecker's lap which appeared to contain marijuana. When Mr. Ecker realized he was being observed, he threw the marijuana cigarette from his hand. The deputy then opened the vehicle door and advised Mr. Ecker that he was under arrest. As Mr. Ecker was exiting his vehicle, he attempted to conceal one of the plastic bags. Mr. Ecker was charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana.
At the suppression hearing, Mr. Ecker argued that the initial posture of his head and arms in the car did not give rise to a founded suspicion which would authorize an investigatory detention under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Mr. Ecker relied primarily upon this court's decision in Carter v. State, 454 So.2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), which admittedly has some factual similarities to this case. The trial court suppressed the illegal drugs because it believed that Carter required this result.
Assuming Mr. Ecker is correct that his initial position in the car did not create a founded suspicion, he overlooks the fact that the deputy's mere approach to the car was not a seizure. State v. Starke, --- So.2d ---- (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Mr. Ecker had no reason to believe that he was not free to leave and, consequently, was not seized until the deputy opened the vehicle door and announced that he was under arrest. Michigan v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sierra v. State, 89-1703
...reh'g. denied, 448 U.S. 908, 100 S.Ct. 3051, 65 L.Ed.2d 1138 (1980); State v. Starke, 550 So.2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); State v. Ecker, 550 So.2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); State v. Billingsly, 542 So.2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA The deputy checked the building, saw no apparent damage, and called for ......
-
State v. Raines
...to the seizure of the defendant did not establish a founded suspicion and a basis to perform a pat-down search. See State v. Ecker, 550 So.2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The police did not approach Mr. Carter for a mere encounter, but rather approached with their guns drawn and immediately seiz......
-
State v. Carley, 92-02769
...did not violate constitutional principles. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983); State v. Ecker, 550 So.2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). It merely enhanced the officer's "plain view" of the gun. See State v. Heiser, 583 So.2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 593 S......
-
Roberts v. State
...may specifically be looking at an area of suspicious activity. State v. Billingsly, 542 So.2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); State v. Ecker, 550 So.2d 545 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1989). The appellant had no legitimate expectation of privacy while in a parked automobile in a parking lot to which the public ......