MJS v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

MJS v. State

620 So. 2d 1080

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 25, 1993

Docket92-01622

StatusPublished

This text of 620 So. 2d 1080 (MJS 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

MJS v. State, 620 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

620 So.2d 1080 (1993)

M.J.S., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 92-01622.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 25, 1993.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Cynthia J. Dodge, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PATTERSON, Judge.

The appellant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. He argues that the evidence was obtained during an illegal search and seizure. We agree and reverse.

The testimony at the suppression hearing reveals that Officer Michael Samms of the Lakeland Police Department approached *1081 the appellant, who was standing on the porch of a house under surveillance for drug activity. The appellant was startled by the officer's appearance and attempted to conceal something in his mouth. The officer put his hand on the appellant's shoulder and told the appellant that if he had just put drugs in his mouth he needed to "spit it out" because they would make him "real ill." The appellant spit out several pieces of rock cocaine and Officer Samms placed him under arrest.

The appellant's movements did not give the police officer a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the appellant was involved in criminal activity. See Williams v. State, 564 So.2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Although the officer's actions started out as a permissible police/citizen encounter, once the officer put his hand on the appellant's shoulder, the appellant was seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991). Thereafter, the officer's order to "spit it out" constituted an illegal search. Williams, 564 So.2d at 594.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court for the suppression of the evidence.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.

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

620 So.2d 1080 (1993)

M.J.S., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 92-01622.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 25, 1993.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Cynthia J. Dodge, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PATTERSON, Judge.

The appellant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. He argues that the evidence was obtained during an illegal search and seizure. We agree and reverse.

The testimony at the suppression hearing reveals that Officer Michael Samms of the Lakeland Police Department approached *1081 the appellant, who was standing on the porch of a house under surveillance for drug activity. The appellant was startled by the officer's appearance and attempted to conceal something in his mouth. The officer put his hand on the appellant's shoulder and told the appellant that if he had just put drugs in his mouth he needed to "spit it out" because they would make him "real ill." The appellant spit out several pieces of rock cocaine and Officer Samms placed him under arrest.

The appellant's movements did not give the police officer a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the appellant was involved in criminal activity. See Williams v. State, 564 So.2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Although the officer's actions started out as a permissible police/citizen encounter, once the officer put his hand on the appellant's shoulder, the appellant was seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991). Thereafter, the officer's order to "spit it out" constituted an illegal search. Williams, 564 So.2d at 594.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court for the suppression of the evidence.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

620 So. 2d 1080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mjs-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

M.J.S., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

M.J.S., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.