E.F. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

E.F. v. State

795 So. 2d 232, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13424, 2001 WL 1130830

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 26, 2001

DocketNo. 3D00-2403

StatusPublished

This text of 795 So. 2d 232 (E.F. 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

E.F. v. State, 795 So. 2d 232, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13424, 2001 WL 1130830 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the state’s proper confession of error, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the Appellant’s motion to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence.¹ See § 901.151, Fla. Stat. (2001); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); J.L. v. State, 727 So.2d 204, 206 (Fla.1998), aff'd, 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000) (holding that anonymous tip was insufficient to justify a Tern/ stop, absent indication that police independently observed suspicious or illegal conduct); Phillips v. State, 781 So.2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“If a police officer does not have the necessary founded suspicion to support the investigatory stop, the evidence obtained during the invalid search must be suppressed.”) (citations omitted); L.M. v. State, 694 So.2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (holding that an anonymous tip does not give rise to reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify temporary detention); T.W.C. v. State, 666 So.2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (holding that deputy did not have a reasonable suspicion that minor had committed or was committing an offense, and even if there was a basis for a protective search, the search exceeded a pat-down of the outer clothing).

We reverse and remand with directions to discharge the Appellant.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the state’s proper confession of error, we reverse the trial court’s order denying the Appellant’s motion to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence.¹ See § 901.151, Fla. Stat. (2001); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); J.L. v. State, 727 So.2d 204, 206 (Fla.1998), aff'd, 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000) (holding that anonymous tip was insufficient to justify a Tern/ stop, absent indication that police independently observed suspicious or illegal conduct); Phillips v. State, 781 So.2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“If a police officer does not have the necessary founded suspicion to support the investigatory stop, the evidence obtained during the invalid search must be suppressed.”) (citations omitted); L.M. v. State, 694 So.2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (holding that an anonymous tip does not give rise to reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify temporary detention); T.W.C. v. State, 666 So.2d 217 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (holding that deputy did not have a reasonable suspicion that minor had committed or was committing an offense, and even if there was a basis for a protective search, the search exceeded a pat-down of the outer clothing).

We reverse and remand with directions to discharge the Appellant.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

795 So. 2d 232, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13424, 2001 WL 1130830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ef-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack