LAKETHAN WARREN BOZEMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Lakethan Bozeman was arrested for cocaine possession after police conducted a warrantless search during a vehicle stop. The court reversed his conviction, holding that the officer lacked legal justification to continue detaining Bozeman and conduct the search once the officer determined he was fit to drive.
The court reversed, holding that the continued detention and warrantless search were illegal because once the officer determined the appellant was fit to drive, he had accomplished the purpose of the stop and lacked legal justification to continue the detention or conduct the search. The observation of a folded opaque square of paper alone did not provide probable cause to search.
[1] Continued detention of a person is illegal once the purpose of a traffic stop has been accomplished, absent a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity.
[2] A police officer's observation of a folded opaque container, without other objective elements, does not establish probable cause to search.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Absent a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity, continued detention is illegal once a police officer accomplishes the purpose of a traffic stop.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that detention must cease once the stop's purpose is accomplished
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 6, 1991, Lakeland police officers discovered Bozeman slumped over his steering wheel in a hamburger restaurant drive-through. After determi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Furtive Movements cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
The appellant seeks the reversal of his judgment and sentence for possession of cocaine. He challenges the denial of his motion to suppress cocaine found during a warrantless search of his person. We reverse.
On January 6, 1991, Officers Zuercher and Shinn of the Lakeland Police Department pulled in behind the appellant’s car in the drive-through lane of a hamburger restaurant. After a few minutes, the officers noticed that the appellant was slumped over his steering wheel. Concerned for the appellant’s safety, the officers approached the vehicle. In response to several inquiries by Zuercher as to whether he was all right, the appellant “woke up” mumbling. After the appellant “woke up,” Zuercher asked him for identification. While reaching over to his glove compartment for the registration, the appellant picked up a piece of paper, which was folded into a small opaque square, and put it in his left-front pants pocket. The appellant then provided his driver’s license and registration, which were in order. On the officer’s request, the appellant got out of his car and performed field sobriety tests. The appellant passed each sobriety test. According to Zuercher, the appellant was “very cooperative.” Zuercher testified that at that point “the defendant was free to leave after I ascertained that he was OK.”
Nonetheless, Zuercher ordered the appellant to turn around and place his hands on his head. The officer reached into the appellant’s pocket and pulled out the folded piece of paper, which contained rock cocaine. Zuercher did not ask the appellant for consent to search him, nor did the officer suspect that the appellant had a weapon. The appellant had explained to the officer that he had fallen asleep while waiting in the drive-through lane.
Absent a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity, continued detention is illegal once a police officer accomplishes the purpose of a traffic stop. Cresswell v. State, 564 So. 2d 480 (Fla.1990). Here, once Zuercher determined that the appellant was fit to drive, his continued detention and warrantless search were illegal. See Blue v. State, 592 So. 2d 1263 (Fla.2d DCA 1992) (extensive detention after initial valid stop illegal because observations did not give rise to founded suspicion when driver made furtive movement and defendant made “hiding” motion as he adjusted his pants); Dunbar v. State, 592 So. 2d 1230 (Fla.2d DCA 1992), and Joseph v. State, 588 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.2d DCA 1991) (continued detention and search illegal when officer had already accomplished purpose of the stop).
Furthermore, the officer’s observation of the folded-up square of paper did not give him probable cause to search the appellant. See Caplan v. State, 531 So. 2d 88, 92 (Fla.1988) (absent some other objective element, observation of opaque containers, such as hand-rolled cigarette papers, does not establish probable cause to search), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1099, 109 S.Ct. 1577, 103 L.Ed.2d 942 (1989). Once the appellant passed the field sobriety tests, the officer’s initial concerns had been dispelled, and Zuercher had a mere suspicion when he seized the folded-up square of paper from the appellant.
Thus, the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion to suppress.
Reversed.
LEHAN, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. DeSHONG, 603 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…traband or other evidence of criminal activity, see Brown v. State, 577 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); or that the length of detention between the initial stop and the administering of the field sobriety tests was unreasonable, see Bozeman v. State, 603 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Joseph v. State, 588 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Under these circumstances, the hearing officer was clearly authorized to decide that the stop was lawful and that the officer thereafter properly developed probable cause for t…
-
Sims v. State, 622 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Once the officer accomplished the purpose of the stop, which Officer Powell acknowledged at the suppression hearing was to cite Sims for the open container violation, his continued detention was illegal. See Bozeman v. State, 603 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Therefore, the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress and we reverse. JOANOS, ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur.…
-
State v. Brooks, 662 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…. 1st DCA 1986). . See Cooper v. State, 654 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Powell v. State, 649 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Rouse v. State, 643 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Sims v. State, 622 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Bozeman v. State, 603 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Blue v. State, 592 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Dunbar v. State, 592 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); State v. Anderson, 479 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). .See State v. Orozco, 607 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), rev. denied,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cresswell v. State, 564 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1990)
- Clark A. Caplan v. State, 531 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 1988)
- Sanon v. Joseph, 588 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Leibowitz v. Massachusetts, 489 U.S. 1099 (U.S. 1989)
- Becton v. United States, 489 U.S. 1099 (U.S. 1989)
- Dunbar v. State, 592 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Blue v. State, 592 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)