State v. Grant

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Grant

845 So. 2d 984, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7497, 2003 WL 21180144

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 21, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-379

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 845 So. 2d 984 (State v. Grant) 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

State v. Grant, 845 So. 2d 984, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7497, 2003 WL 21180144 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

KLEIN, J.

The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress, and the state appeals, arguing that the officer, who saw the defendant drop a glass pipe, had reasonable suspicion to believe the pipe was used to smoke crack. We reverse.

The officer testified that he was walking in a narcotics area, at night, near an abandoned building. He observed the defendant behind a wall, with a lighter in one hand and a glass pipe in the other. When the defendant saw the officer, who had turned on his flashlight, he dropped the pipe. After a backup arrived, the officer retrieved the glass pipe, which contained cocaine. He testified at the suppression hearing that he had seen hundreds of crack pipes and that he recognized this as such as soon as he observed the defendant.

We agree with the state that, applying the law to these facts, the officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was committing a crime. § 901.151, Fla. Stat. (2001); C.A.M. v. State, 819 So.2d 807, 808-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(determination of reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances and is reviewed de novo). We therefore reverse.

SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

KLEIN, J.

The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress, and the state appeals, arguing that the officer, who saw the defendant drop a glass pipe, had reasonable suspicion to believe the pipe was used to smoke crack. We reverse.

The officer testified that he was walking in a narcotics area, at night, near an abandoned building. He observed the defendant behind a wall, with a lighter in one hand and a glass pipe in the other. When the defendant saw the officer, who had turned on his flashlight, he dropped the pipe. After a backup arrived, the officer retrieved the glass pipe, which contained cocaine. He testified at the suppression hearing that he had seen hundreds of crack pipes and that he recognized this as such as soon as he observed the defendant.

We agree with the state that, applying the law to these facts, the officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was committing a crime. § 901.151, Fla. Stat. (2001); C.A.M. v. State, 819 So.2d 807, 808-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(determination of reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances and is reviewed de novo). We therefore reverse.

SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

845 So. 2d 984, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7497, 2003 WL 21180144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-grant-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack