A.L. v. State, 133 So. 3d 1239

A.L. pled no contest to carrying a concealed firearm, reserving appeal of the denial of his motion to suppress.
On June 26, 2012, a gun fell from A.L.’s pants during an encounter with a Miramar police officer.
The officer initially encountered A.L. while patrolling an area with burglary reports and warned him to stay away if no legitimate reason existed.
Fifteen to twenty minutes later, in the same area, the officer again encountered A.L., ordered him off his bike, and asked for identification; while he adjusted his pants, a gun fell and A.L. claimed it as his.
The trial court found no reasonable suspicion to justify a stop but treated the contact as consensual; the appellate court held it was a stop not a consensual encounter and reversed, suppressing the incriminating evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the second encounter a stop requiring reasonable suspicion?	A.L. argues the stop was unsupported.	The contact was a consensual encounter.	Yes; the encounter was a stop.
Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity?	The officer lacked reasonable suspicion.	Not explicitly stated, but implied low-level justification for encounter.	No; the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion; suppress evidence.

Delhall v. State, 95 So.3d 134 (Fla.2012) (mixed standard of review for suppression rulings; de novo application of law to facts)
Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185 (Fla.1993) (consensual encounters require no reasonable suspicion; free to leave)
Garcia v. State, 88 So.3d 394 (Fla.4th DCA 2012) (totality of circumstances governs consensual vs. stop)
Smith v. State, 95 So.3d 966 (Fla.1st DCA 2012) (consensual encounter becomes a stop when officer shows authority)