241 So. 3d 914
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Jackson and two others broke into a home at gunpoint, confined four occupants, and stole multiple items including an iPhone; victims later identified Jackson at a show-up.
- Police tracked the stolen iPhone in real time and broadcast a BOLO; an officer located a nearby car matching the iPhone’s movements and the occupants’ general descriptions.
- Officer stopped the car, handcuffed occupants, and (per department “plus one” policy) opened the trunk, finding marijuana and a revolver with an altered serial number; court later suppressed trunk evidence.
- Victims were brought to the stop, identified Jackson and another passenger, leading to arrests; a search incident to arrest of the passenger compartment produced additional stolen property and the iPhone.
- Jackson was tried (self-represented), convicted of burglary, aggravated assault, and two counts of armed robbery; court found him subject to the Prison Releasee Reoffender (PRR) Act and imposed concurrent life sentences with mandatory minimums.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence from passenger compartment should be suppressed as fruit of illegal trunk search | Trunk search was illegal; it produced the show-up, so subsequent detention/searches and passenger-compartment evidence are tainted | BOLO and iPhone tracking provided independent reasonable suspicion to stop and detain; identification and arrest created probable cause; passenger-compartment search valid as incident to arrest | Court upheld admission: stop and detention were supported by reasonable suspicion; identification produced probable cause; search incident to arrest valid under Gant |
| Whether PRR sentencing facts must be found by a jury under Alleyne/Apprendi | PRR mandatory-minimum and life enhancement increase sentence and thus require jury finding beyond reasonable doubt | PRR remains constitutional under Florida precedent; appellate panel bound by Williams rejecting Alleyne challenge to PRR | Court rejected Alleyne challenge and followed Williams; PRR application upheld |
| Whether life sentence under PRR violates Eighth Amendment/cruel and unusual punishment | Life sentence is grossly disproportionate given offense and proximity to PRR cutoff | Life sentence for armed robbery is not grossly disproportionate; Legislature may set PRR cutoff; Florida precedent upholds PRR mandatory minima | Court held sentence does not violate Eighth Amendment or Florida Constitution |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (search of vehicle incident to arrest principles)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree/voluntariness doctrines)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (other than prior convictions, any fact increasing statutory maximum must be found by jury)
- Williams v. State, 143 So. 3d 423 (Fla. 1st DCA) (panel ruling PRR not invalidated by Alleyne)
- Robinson v. State, 793 So. 2d 891 (Fla.) (upholding PRR under Apprendi)
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla.) (PRR mandatory scheme does not violate Eighth Amendment)
- Adaway v. State, 902 So. 2d 746 (Fla.) (gross-disproportionality test for Eighth Amendment challenges)
- Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla.) (factors for BOLO-based investigatory stops)
- State v. Bowers, 87 So. 3d 704 (Fla.) (officer may rely on information from other officers/reliable third parties)