57 So. 3d 915
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Fernandez was convicted and sentenced for violating probation in case 01-31256-B and for three armed robberies in case 07-24549; consolidated appeals challenge suppression of identifications and seized evidence.
- A BOLO described the armed robber as a black man in black shorts and a white T-shirt driving a blue Toyota; the description matched Fernandez.
- Officer Sirois pursued a vehicle; before stopping it, the driver fled; Officer Vangilis later observed Fernandez matching the BOLO near the abandoned blue Toyota and chased him when he ran.
- Officer De La Paz detained Fernandez near a pay phone after confirming the BOLO details; he handcuffed him and conducted a pat-down due to safety concerns, uncovering $444 and two gold chains.
- Approximately thirty minutes later, the victims identified Fernandez at show-up style identifications; Sabrina and Hiram Perez identified Fernandez's vehicle and Sabrina identified a firearm from a dumpster as the robbery weapon.
- The trial court ruled the pat-down admissible under inevitable discovery and denied suppression; Fernandez was convicted on the probation violation and the three armed robbery counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop and detention exceeded the Terry scope | State argues detention was temporary, justified by reasonable suspicion, and did not become an arrest. | Fernandez contends handcuffing, pat-down, and time until show-ups exceeded the Terry stop. | Detention within Terry scope; permissible for safety and fugitive risk. |
| Whether the gold chains and money were admissible under inevitable discovery | State asserts inevitable discovery doctrine applies; items would have been discovered lawfully. | Fernandez challenges admissibility of evidence seized during pat-down. | Admissible under inevitable discovery doctrine. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saturnino-Boudet v. State, 682 So.2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (permits limited detentions and frisk under Terry when justified by reasonable suspicion)
- Reynolds v. State, 592 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1992) (handcuffs in a Terry stop may be used when necessary for safety)
- Maulden v. State, 617 So.2d 298 (Fla. 1993) (inevitable discovery admissibility if discovery would have occurred lawfully)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1968) (rules permissible stop and frisk with reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Simons, 549 So.2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (limits on frisk for concealed weapons during a Terry stop)