ELTON GAFFNEY, 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.
Elton Gaffney was convicted of resisting an officer without violence following an investigative detention. The appellate court reversed his conviction, holding that the State failed to establish reasonable suspicion for the initial detention because it did not present testimony from the officer who first encountered Gaffney.
No. The State failed to meet its burden of establishing reasonable suspicion because it did not present testimony from the officer who initially encountered Gaffney, and the later-arriving officers could not describe the circumstances of the initial detention or what occurred between Officer Back and Gaffney before they arrived.
[1] A police officer may not detain a person for investigatory purposes without a founded suspicion of criminal activity, absent the person's consent.
[2] An investigatory detention is permissible if an officer has a well-founded suspicion, supported by articulable facts, of criminal activity.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Without a founded suspicion of criminal activity, a police officer does not have the right to detain a person absent that person's consent.”
Establishes the legal standard that detention requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGaffney was detained by officers as part of a burglary investigation. The State presented testimony only from officers who arrived later at the locati…
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 Investigative Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Elton Gaffney appeals his judgment and sentence for resisting an officer without violence arguing that the trial court erred in denying his dispositive motion to suppress evidence. We agree with Gaffney that the State did not carry its burden of showing that officers had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity necessary to justify the investigative detention that led to his arrest, and accordingly, we reverse.
Without a founded suspicion of criminal activity, a police officer does not have the right to detain a person absent that person’s consent. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); see also Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983). A stop or brief detention of a person for investigatory purposes is permissible if an officer has a well-founded suspicion, supported by articulable facts, of criminal activity even if the officer lacks probable cause. Terry, 392 U.S. at 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868. Whether an officer’s suspicion is reasonable is determined by the “totality of the circumstances” that existed at the time of the investigatory detention. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981).
The parties do not dispute that Gaffney was detained by officers as part of their burglary investigation. In attempting to meet its burden to establish reasonable suspicion for the detention, the State did not present any testimony from Officer Back, the officer who initially encountered Gaffney, instead relying on the observations of officers who arrived later at the location where Officer Back and Gaffney were standing. However, those officers did not offer any testimony regarding the circumstances under which Officer Back first encountered Gaffney nor did they explain what, if anything, transpired between Gaffney and Officer Back before they arrived. Without that information, we cannot evaluate whether Gaffney’s detention was justified by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity because the State did not establish the “totality of the circumstances” that existed at the time of his detention. See Walker v. State, 846 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, we reverse Gaffney’s conviction and sentence for resisting an officer without violence.
Reversed.
WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Partlow v. State, 134 So. 3d 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…State v. Setzler, 667 So. 2d 343, 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). It is well-established that “[wjith-out a founded suspicion of criminal activity, a police officer does not have the right to detain a person absent that person’s consent.” Gaffney v. State, 974 So. 2d 425, 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), and Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983)); see § 901.151, Fla. Stat. (2009) (setting out the circumstances in which an…
Authorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1981)
- Walker v. State, 846 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)