Rozier v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rozier v. State

368 So. 2d 379, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14580

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 1979

DocketNo. 77-2639

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 368 So. 2d 379 (Rozier 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

Rozier v. State, 368 So. 2d 379, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14580 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

Rozier appeals his conviction for the possession of controlled substance paraphernalia. He pled nolo contendere below, reserving the right to challenge the court’s denial [380]*380of his motion to suppress the paraphernalia — a hypodermic needle and bottle cap “cooker” — which had been secured by a search of his person after an arrest on an outstanding bench warrant. We hold that the motion to suppress should have been granted because the police officers’ initial stop of the defendant, which resulted in the arrest, was based on no more than a “bare suspicion of illegal activity” rather than the “founded” or “reasonable” suspicion constitutionally required to support it. Mullins v. State, 366 So.2d 1162 (Fla.1978), and cases cited; Parker v. State, 363 So.2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Jackson v. State, 319 So.2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cf. State v. Brooks, 281 So.2d 55, 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (“high crime area” alone insufficient to justify stop). The judgment below is therefore reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant the motion to suppress.

Reversed and remanded.

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

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

Rozier appeals his conviction for the possession of controlled substance paraphernalia. He pled nolo contendere below, reserving the right to challenge the court’s denial [380]*380of his motion to suppress the paraphernalia — a hypodermic needle and bottle cap “cooker” — which had been secured by a search of his person after an arrest on an outstanding bench warrant. We hold that the motion to suppress should have been granted because the police officers’ initial stop of the defendant, which resulted in the arrest, was based on no more than a “bare suspicion of illegal activity” rather than the “founded” or “reasonable” suspicion constitutionally required to support it. Mullins v. State, 366 So.2d 1162 (Fla.1978), and cases cited; Parker v. State, 363 So.2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Jackson v. State, 319 So.2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cf. State v. Brooks, 281 So.2d 55, 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (“high crime area” alone insufficient to justify stop). The judgment below is therefore reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant the motion to suppress.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 So. 2d 379, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rozier-v-state-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack