From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Love v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 20, 1998
706 So. 2d 923 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Opinion

Case No. 97-00886.

Opinion filed February 20, 1998.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Diana Allen, Judge.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Sullivan, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.


Randy Love appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine after pleading no contest and reserving the right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress. Because the cocaine was seized as a result of an illegal stop of Love's vehicle, we reverse.

Deputy Lewis testified that he first observed Love's vehicle around 3 a.m. driving slowly through a neighborhood. His attention was drawn to the car because it was a late model Toyota. He got behind the vehicle and ran a check on the tag. It was registered to an address located in the direction away from that in which vehicle was traveling. The car had not been reported as stolen. The deputy testified that he stopped the vehicle to do a field interview because he had a suspicion that the driver was casing homes. His suspicion was based on the fact that there had been burglaries in the area, the car was a type that is commonly stolen and it was being driven at a speed of approximately 20 mph in a 35 mph zone.

To justify an investigatory stop, a law enforcement officer must have a founded suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. § 901.151(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). A hunch or bare suspicion of illegal activity cannot justify a stop. The suspicion must "have some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer when those circumstances are interpreted in light of the officer's knowledge." Peabody v. State, 556 So.2d 826, 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

We are unwilling to hold that driving slowly late at night, in a type of vehicle that is often stolen, in a neighborhood that has had burglaries at some unspecified time in the past will justify an investigatory stop. Therefore, we hold that the facts known to Deputy Lewis at the time he stopped Love's vehicle do not rise to the level of founded suspicion.

Because the trial court erred by denying Love's motion to suppress, we reverse and remand with directions that Love's motion to suppress be granted.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

PATTERSON, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Love v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 20, 1998
706 So. 2d 923 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Case details for

Love v. State

Case Details

Full title:RANDY LOVE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Feb 20, 1998

Citations

706 So. 2d 923 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Santiago v. State

But, a mere suspicion or hunch is not enough to justify temporary detention. As Florida courts have…

McDavid v. State

Police may temporarily detain a citizen if the officer has a well-founded, articulable suspicion that the…