Flagg v. State
74 So. 3d 138
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Flagg was stopped on a bicycle in a high drug crime area for a light violation at 1:14 a.m.
- He acted aggressively; officer asked to open his hand fearing concealed weapon.
- Two pieces of crack cocaine fell to the ground; Flagg was arrested.
- During arrest-related search, a crack pipe was found in his pocket.
- Flagg was charged with possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia.
- Motion to suppress was denied; Flagg pled no contest but reserved appellate challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the suppression denial correct? | Flagg contends stop was illegal. | State asserts stop valid and discovery lawful. | Denial affirmed |
| Is section 893.13 unconstitutional on its face? | Flagg argues lack of mens rea renders it strict liability. | State argues statute constitutional despite 893.101(2). | Constitutional; statute affirmed |
| Effect of section 893.101 defense on knowledge element | Shelton-like reasoning must apply nullifying knowledge defense. | Affirmative defense negates innocence proof; state bears burden when raised. | Defense operates; state must prove knowledge beyond reasonable doubt |
| Is Shelton persuasive or binding to render 893.13 unconstitutional | Shelton would render statute unconstitutional. | Shelton is not persuasive; this court can reaffirm constitutionality. | Shelton not persuasive; reaffirmed constitutionality |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 45 So.3d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (addressed mens rea in 893.13 challenges)
- Johnson v. State, 37 So.3d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (confronts 893.101 mens rea effects)
- Wright v. State, 920 So.2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (explains knowledge requirement not an element; jury instruction guidance)
- Feliciano v. State, 937 So.2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (strict liability concept in related offenses)