From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Hager

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 29, 1984
445 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

No. 83-1273.

February 29, 1984.

Petition for review from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Frank H. White, J.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

Joseph R. Miele, St. Petersburg, for appellee.


The state seeks review of the trial court's order granting appellee Hager's motion to suppress evidence. After a careful consideration of the record, arguments, and the applicable law, we find no error in the trial court's decision. A "founded" suspicion would be necessary to justify the actions of the police officer in this case. In fact, the record reflects that the police officer had no more than a "bare" or "mere" suspicion of illegal activity. The trial court properly granted Hager's motion to suppress. Mullins v. State, 366 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 883, 100 S.Ct. 173, 62 L.Ed.2d 113 (1979); Coladonato v. State, 348 So.2d 326 (Fla. 1977); Wilson v. State, 433 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); R.B. v. State, 429 So.2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Kearse v. State, 384 So.2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

AFFIRMED.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Hager

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 29, 1984
445 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

State v. Hager

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, v. CHARLES ANTHONY HAGER, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Feb 29, 1984

Citations

445 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing Cases

Wilhelm v. State

A mere or bare suspicion is never sufficient. State v. Ecker, 311 So.2d 104 (Fla. 1975); Williams v. State,…