Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 26 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-3270,87-3270 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2418 Michael J. THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Allyn Giambalvo, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The defendant, Michael J. Thomas, appeals the denial of his motion to suppress self-incriminating statements and a vial with cocaine residue found as a result of a police pat-down. After reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion, Thomas pled nolo contendere to possession of cocaine and possession of paraphernalia charges. We reverse.
At 1:30 a.m. on April 10, 1987, the arresting officer observed Thomas crouched down in a crowd over the flame of a Bic lighter in a known drug area. Upon seeing the officer, the crowd dispersed. As Thomas walked quickly away from the scene, he stuffed something in his pants. The officer told Thomas to stop and put his hands on a car. He then patted Thomas down and pulled out a glass pipe or vial from the groin area of Thomas's pants. Thomas admitted he had used the pipe to smoke rock cocaine.
The officer stopped Thomas under the Florida Stop and Frisk Law, section 901.151, Florida Statutes (1985). Thomas argues that the stop was improper because the only things which gave rise to the officer's suspicions were Thomas's being in a high crime area and his attempt to conceal something in his pants. We disagree and think the stop was proper. Many factors, such as the time, place, and actions of the individuals, determine the propriety of a temporary detention. State v. Spurling, 385 So.2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). We think the totality of Thomas's behavior observed by the officer at a known drug-transaction area late at night was sufficient to justify the officer's founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. We distinguish the instant case from R.B. v. State, 429 So.2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), in which the stop was improper where the defendant was detained merely because upon seeing a squad car, he quickly placed his hand in his jacket pocket and started walking faster. See G.J.P. v. State, 469 So.2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (). In the instant case, the facts substantiate the officer's founded suspicion: Thomas was observed crouching with others...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...he has probable cause to believe that the individual is armed with a dangerous weapon. § 901.151(5), Fla.Stat. (1989); Thomas v. State, 533 So.2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Where the officer testifies that he had no reason to believe that the person was armed, the search is invalidated. Id., 5......
-
Hill v. State
...officer did not testify that he had any reason to believe appellant was armed, therefore, the frisk was improper. Thomas v. State, 533 So.2d 861, 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Furthermore, the officers had no authority to continue to detain appellant after the "consensual encounter" and the frisk......
-
State v. Raines
...actions involving the cigarette lighter, the officers had not seized the defendant when they approached the car. See Thomas v. State, 533 So.2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). During the initial contact with the defendant, however, he quickly moved his hands under the driver's seat in an attempt to......
-
Ricks v. State
...1032, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983). However, they were not automatically authorized to search the defendant. Thomas v. State, 533 So.2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). This case is analogous to those invalidating a seizure where the officer upon stopping the defendant reached inside the d......