In the Interest of T.C. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In the Interest of T.C. v. State

576 So. 2d 419, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2336, 1991 WL 35355

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 19, 1991·No. No. 90-1930·Published

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The adjudication of delinquency is reversed because the trial judge erroneously refused to suppress the drugs which were the basis of the charge. This conclusion is based upon the determinations that (a) the officers effected a non-consensual Terry stop by physically preventing him from proceeding on his way, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Ramos, 378 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); (b) the actions of the respondent in stuffing an ordinary paper bag in his pocket and walking away from the police after he had observed them fall woefully short of presenting the “founded suspicion” of unlawful activity which is necessary to justify such a stop, Gipson v. State, 537 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Ingram v. State, 364 So.2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); and (c) any “consent” which may arguendo have been given by the juvenile for the search of the paper bag which revealed the contraband was tainted and rendered ineffective by the thus unlawful seizure. Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643, 646-47 (Fla.1980); Ingram, 364 So.2d at 821.

Reversed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The adjudication of delinquency is reversed because the trial judge erroneously refused to suppress the drugs which were the basis of the charge. This conclusion is based upon the determinations that (a) the officers effected a non-consensual Terry stop by physically preventing him from proceeding on his way, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Ramos, 378 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); (b) the actions of the respondent in stuffing an ordinary paper bag in his pocket and walking away from the police after he had observed them fall woefully short of presenting the “founded suspicion” of unlawful activity which is necessary to justify such a stop, Gipson v. State, 537 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Ingram v. State, 364 So.2d 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); and (c) any “consent” which may arguendo have been given by the juvenile for the search of the paper bag which revealed the contraband was tainted and rendered ineffective by the thus unlawful seizure. Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643, 646-47 (Fla.1980); Ingram, 364 So.2d at 821.

Reversed.

In the Interest of T.C. v. State, 576 So. 2d 419, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2336, 1991 WL 35355 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

576 So. 2d 419 (In the Interest of T.C. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related