Hill v. State
51 So. 3d 649
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Sergeant Bringmans, patrolling Midway, noted recent burglaries in area but had no specific crimes at the time.
- Hill was seen standing in front of a parked car at a closed Pure Gas Station at about 1:15 a.m.
- Hill entered his car and drove away after making eye contact with Bringmans, who then turned around to follow.
- Bringmans followed Hill for about 1.5 miles and ran a vehicle tag check, observing no unusual driving behavior.
- Stop was based on the station's closure time, the high-crime locale, and Hill’s departure after eye contact.
- A canine unit alerted after requesting backup; a subsequent search yielded marijuana and a loaded firearm; Hill challenged the stop via suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion? | Hill argues minimal facts support suspicion. | State asserts factors show suspicious activity given location and timing. | No reasonable suspicion; stop reversed. |
| Does headlong flight justify a stop under Wardlow principles? | Hill did not flee in a manner signaling suspicion. | State relies on flight as suspicious in high-crime area. | Wardlow not satisfied here; stop unlawful. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2000) (flight in a high-crime area may indicate suspicion, but not here)
- L.N.D. v. State, 884 So.2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (circumstances insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion)
- Errickson v. State, 855 So.2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (no specific criminal offense known to justify stop)
- F.E.A. v. State, 804 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (headlong flight not proven sufficient here)
- Paff v. State, 884 So.2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (car leaving scene at lawful speed may not indicate flight)
- Cunningham v. State, 884 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (ambulant departure does not establish suspicion)
- Hewlett v. State, 599 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (stop unlawful when facts show no basis for suspicion)
- Brye v. State, 927 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (standard for suppression review (mixed questions))
- Panter v. State, 8 So.3d 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (assessment of factual findings for suppression)
- Huffman v. State, 937 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (reasonable suspicion review in first district)
- Ikner v. State, 756 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (clarifies de novo review of reasonable suspicion)