Carter v. State
120 So. 3d 207
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Carter appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine and cannabis with intent to sell or deliver.
- He contends the suppression motion should have been granted due to lack of reasonable suspicion for the stop.
- Officer Rivero testified they stopped Carter’s vehicle after a stop sign issue, but could not recall observing the traffic infraction personally.
- The suppression court denied the motion, relying on the stop as supported by the officers’ testimony.
- Appellate review requires de novo review of legal conclusions and factual findings must be supported by competent substantial evidence.
- The court reverses, holds no competent substantial evidence supported the stop, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle? | Carter argues no reasonable suspicion. | Rivero contends there was sufficient basis via fellow-officer information. | No reasonable suspicion established. |
| Does the fellow-officer rule require testimony from the observing officer to validate the stop? | Carter relies on lack of testimony from Sikos as fatal. | Rivero could base on reliable information from Sikos if communicated. | Insufficient competent substantial evidence; reversal warranted. |
| What is the proper standard of review for suppression rulings? | Carter urges strict de novo review of all findings. | Law and facts reviewed with de novo for legal conclusions, respect factual findings. | De novo review for legal conclusions; factual findings must be supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. State, 77 So.3d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (presumption of correctness for suppression orders; inferential support)
- Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (Fla.2002) (standard for reviewing trial-court findings of fact)
- State v. Thomas, 109 So.3d 814 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (de novo review for legal application; respect for factual findings)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) (totality-of-the-circumstances standard for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (totality-of-the-circumstances framework)
- Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Roberts, 938 So.2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (reasonable suspicion in traffic-stop context)
- State v. Peterson, 739 So.2d 561 (Fla.1999) (fellow-officer observations can support stop)
- State v. Bowers, 87 So.3d 704 (Fla.2012) (collective knowledge rule for officer actions)
- Reed v. State, 114 So.3d 969 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (suppression hearing testimony considerations)
- Adderly v. Fla., 809 So.2d 75 (Fla.4th DCA 2002) (limitations on officer testimonial sources in suppression)