Cronin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cronin v. State

656 So. 2d 213, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5641, 1995 WL 313895

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 25, 1995

DocketNo. 94-2079

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 656 So. 2d 213 (Cronin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cronin v. State, 656 So. 2d 213, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5641, 1995 WL 313895 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We review the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. In the instant case, a juvenile with whom the arrest[214]*214ing officer had no prior dealings informed the officer that a woman passenger in a car parked nearby had asked him for crack cocaine. The officer found the car with its two female occupants just as the youth had described, but saw no suspicious activity. The officer approached the car and asked the driver for her license and observed that the appellant closed her legs together. Although the officer did not believe the appellant possessed a weapon, he asked her to exit the vehicle anyway and in a subsequent search discovered a crack pipe.

We reverse the trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress. The officer’s independent observations of the appellant did not provide the requisite basis of a reasonable suspicion, and the tip itself did not exhibit indicia of reliability. Simpkins v. State, 613 So.2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In fact, the record contains no corroboration of the incriminating portion of the tip. Id

REVERSED.

ERVIN and MINER, JJ., concur. BENTON, J., dissents with opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We review the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. In the instant case, a juvenile with whom the arrest[214]*214ing officer had no prior dealings informed the officer that a woman passenger in a car parked nearby had asked him for crack cocaine. The officer found the car with its two female occupants just as the youth had described, but saw no suspicious activity. The officer approached the car and asked the driver for her license and observed that the appellant closed her legs together. Although the officer did not believe the appellant possessed a weapon, he asked her to exit the vehicle anyway and in a subsequent search discovered a crack pipe.

We reverse the trial court’s order denying the motion to suppress. The officer’s independent observations of the appellant did not provide the requisite basis of a reasonable suspicion, and the tip itself did not exhibit indicia of reliability. Simpkins v. State, 613 So.2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In fact, the record contains no corroboration of the incriminating portion of the tip. Id

REVERSED.

ERVIN and MINER, JJ., concur. BENTON, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

656 So. 2d 213, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5641, 1995 WL 313895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cronin-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack