From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coleman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jan 6, 1999
723 So. 2d 387 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Summary

holding that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress where the officer "did not observe any criminal activity and there was no bulge in Coleman's clothing that could indicate that he was carrying a weapon"

Summary of this case from O.W. v. State

Opinion

No. 97-02861

Opinion filed January 6, 1999.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County, Thomas S. Reese, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Julius J. Aulisio, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


Lorenza Coleman timely appeals the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress cocaine seized from him pursuant to a traffic stop. We reverse.

An officer of the Naples Police Department conducted a traffic stop based on a cracked windshield in a well-lit parking lot of an automobile dealership. A background check revealed that Coleman had a valid driver's license and no outstanding warrants. The officer noticed that Coleman was acting nervous and holding his hand over his pants pocket. The officer did not see any weapons in plain view, nor did he notice any bulge in Coleman's pockets or shirt that might have indicated a weapon. Because Coleman was holding his hand over his pocket, the officer conducted a pat down of Coleman's exterior clothing. The officer noticed a "bulge" in Coleman's pocket like a "kernel of corn." The "bulge" was a quarter-inch sized square and the consistency was soft and yielding to pressure. Based on his training and experience the officer believed that the "bulge" was consistent with that of crack cocaine. The officer seized the item in Coleman's pocket which field tested positive for crack cocaine. The trial court denied Coleman's motion to suppress.

On appeal, Coleman concedes that the stop was proper. However, he challenges the seizure of cocaine from his person after the pat down. Coleman relies on E.H. v. State, 593 So.2d 243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), which is dispositive. The court, in E.H., did not decide the case on the plain touch doctrine. Rather, in E.H., the court held that an officer's pat down search pursuant to a traffic stop was impermissible where the appellant kept reaching into his pocket but there was no probable cause that established that the appellant was armed with a dangerous weapon and there was no suspicion or indication of criminal activity. See also Cubby v. State, 707 So.2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that pat down was unlawful in that arresting officer had no reason to believe that defendant was involved in any criminal activity); Hunt v. State, 700 So.2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that pat down pursuant to traffic stop was impermissible where circumstances surrounding search did not give rise to reasonable belief that defendant was armed). The facts in this case are very similar to the facts in E.H. The officer stopped Coleman pursuant to a traffic violation. He did not observe any criminal activity and there was no bulge in Coleman's clothing that could indicate that he was carrying a weapon. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order denying Coleman's motion to suppress.

Reversed.

WHATLEY, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., and QUINCE, PEGGY A., Associate Judge, Concur.


Summaries of

Coleman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jan 6, 1999
723 So. 2d 387 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

holding that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress where the officer "did not observe any criminal activity and there was no bulge in Coleman's clothing that could indicate that he was carrying a weapon"

Summary of this case from O.W. v. State

acting nervous and holding hand over pants pocket

Summary of this case from Goodman v. State

noting that appellant conceded that traffic stop for cracked windshield was valid

Summary of this case from Hilton v. State

noting that the defendant conceded the stop for a cracked windshield was proper, but not discussing the extent of the crack

Summary of this case from Hilton v. State

In Coleman v. State, 723 So.2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), an officer stopped a vehicle having a cracked windshield in a well-lit parking lot of an automobile dealership.

Summary of this case from L.D. v. State
Case details for

Coleman v. State

Case Details

Full title:LORENZA COLEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jan 6, 1999

Citations

723 So. 2d 387 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing Cases

Hilton v. State

This court has held that a vehicle stop for a cracked windshield is justified. Smith v. State, 735 So.2d 570,…

State v. D.E.R

Based upon our conclusion that the record evidence fully supports the trial court's finding that the police…