Williams v. State, 97-3988.
| Decision Date | 17 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-3988.,97-3988. |
| Citation | 721 So.2d 1192 |
| Parties | Robert WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, David P. Gauldin, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Mark C. Menser, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
This is a timely appeal from judgment and sentence following appellant's plea of nolo contendere. The appellant specifically reserved the right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. We reverse.
Just past midnight on March 12, 1997, the Gainesville Police Department received an anonymous tip that the driver of a maroon Ford was "possibly intoxicated and driving from house to house." Arriving in the specified area within five minutes of receiving the tip, the arresting officer immediately spotted a maroon Ford, which was being driven by appellant. After following the appellant for no more than a block, the officer observed the appellant turn on to a side street and then immediately into a driveway. The officer pulled in behind appellant, activated his lights, and ordered appellant out of his vehicle. At the hearing on the motion to suppress the evidence seized from appellant's car, the officer testified that he had not observed any suspicious or criminal activity which would have warranted his stopping appellant. The court denied the motion on the ground that appellant's actions sufficiently corroborated the tip and thus provided the requisite reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop.
With regard to a motion to suppress, we review a trial court's factual findings to determine whether they are supported by competent substantial evidence; however, review of the trial court's application of the law to the facts is de novo. Butler v. State, 706 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
review denied, 659 So.2d 272 (Fla.1995). The facts in this case do not support a finding that the officer had an articulable suspicion of criminal activity. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Young
...they are supported by competent substantial evidence, but its application of law to facts is reviewed de novo. See Williams v. State, 721 So.2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Recognizing that a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is "clothed with the presumption of correctness," w......
-
State v. Robinson
...is subject to de novo review. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); Williams v. State, 721 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Butler v. State, 706 So.2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA ...
-
Johnson v. State
...are supported by competent, substantial evidence, and analyze its application of the law to the facts de novo. See Williams v. State, 721 So.2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Phuagnong v. State, 714 So.2d 527, 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn theref......
-
State v. T.S.
...was sufficiently reliable to support the investigatory stop conducted by Officer Jackson, we reverse. See Williams v. State, 721 So.2d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (confirming that review of a trial court's application of the law to the facts is de novo). “Generally, ‘the Fourth Amendment......