Young v. State
| Decision Date | 04 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D07-1758.,4D07-1758. |
| Parties | Tavaris YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, John Pauly, Jr., and Christine Johnson, Assistant Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mark J. Hamel, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Tavaris Young appeals the denial of his motion to suppress on the grounds that the evidence was seized after an illegal stop. We reverse the denial of the motion to suppress because the encounter in this case was not consensual and there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to justify the stop.
By way of background, Young was walking down the street when Officer Hutchinson exited his patrol vehicle and asked Young to "come here a second." After seeing the officer call and approach him, Young walked away from the officer and moved on to a pathway between two houses. Officer Hutchinson continued to call for Young, when another officer moved to the other side of the pathway, obstructing Young's passage. At this point, Young stopped, turned in Officer Hutchinson's direction and responded to his call. Once Young got closer, Hutchinson smelled marijuana on him. After a search, Hutchinson found twenty baggies of marijuana on Young. Young moved to suppress the marijuana because it was found as a result of an illegal stop. At the motion to suppress hearing, the officer conceded that he had no reasonable suspicion to approach Young. However, the trial court denied Young's motion to suppress because it found the encounter to be consensual.
When determining whether a consensual citizen encounter turns into an investigatory stop or seizure, courts review whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a "reasonable person would feel free to disregard the police and go about his business." State v. R.H., 900 So.2d 689, 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (internal quotations omitted). In this case, Young expressed a clear desire not to engage in a consensual encounter when he walked away from the officer who was hailing him. See Oslin v. State, 912 So.2d 672, 675 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (). However, despite...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State Of Mo. v. Osborn
- State v. Osborn, No. SD 29677 (Mo. App. 5/15/2010)
-
Osborn v. Norman
... ... Edwards, 554 U.S. 164, 128 S.Ct. 2379, 2386, 171 L.Ed.2d 345 (2008); State v. Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d 600, 610 (Mo. banc 2009), Defendant here has failed to cite us to any authority for his implied converse argument that a ... ...
-
Rodriguez v. State
... ... The failure of the trial court to conduct such an inquiry constitutes reversible error. Hardwick v. State, 521 So.2d 1071, 1074 (Fla.1988); State v. Young, 626 So.2d 655 (Fla.1993) (holding that harmless error analysis does not apply and reversal is required when a proper Faretta inquiry is not conducted). Accordingly, we are compelled to reverse the Defendant's conviction and remand the case for a new trial as the trial court's failure to conduct a ... ...
-
Search and seizure
...was a Terry stop done with insufficient suspicion and not an encounter, and the court erred in refusing to suppress. Young v. State, 982 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) LEO saw defendant walking on a city street at 11:15PM He asked defendant to come over and talk to him, and defendant did. ......