KEVIN LAMONT SAMMIEL v. STATE OF FLORIDA
225 So. 3d 250
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Kevin Sammiel was charged with first-degree murder and armed robbery for the killing of Dustin Deckard; two co-defendants (Byrd and Colson) were also implicated.
- Surveillance and eyewitness evidence showed the victim was killed shortly after 12:30 a.m.; an eyewitness reported seeing two men struggle with the victim and a “beat-up” grayish/greenish minivan with at least three occupants leave the scene.
- Police issued a BOLO for a light-colored/metallic older minivan heading north; within ten minutes and under five miles away officers encountered and stopped a silver/gray minivan matching the BOLO; the victim’s cell phone was recovered from the van.
- Byrd was the passenger who fled and was captured; Colson admitted involvement and identified Byrd as the shooter; Sammiel denied participation in the shooting.
- Sammiel moved to suppress the cell phone and his statements on the ground the stop was unlawful because the BOLO was vague; the trial court denied suppression and Sammiel was convicted and sentenced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sammiel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of the traffic stop (motion to suppress) | BOLO, eyewitness reliability, matching vehicle, time/distance, direction of travel, lack of traffic gave founded reasonable suspicion to stop the van | BOLO was too vague/bare-bones (many similar vans in county); stop was unsupported and evidence should be suppressed | Denied. Court found totality of circumstances (reliable eyewitness, matching description, direction, few cars, stop within 10 minutes/5 miles) supported reasonable suspicion to stop |
| Motion for judgment of acquittal | Sufficient evidence (cell phone in van, co-defendant statements, eyewitness accounts) supported convictions | Insufficient evidence to sustain convictions | Denied. Convictions affirmed |
| Admissibility of portions of Sammiel’s recorded statement | Statement portions were admissible; redactions where appropriate were allowed | Certain statements and officer comment should be excluded or further redacted | Held for State; admission of challenged portions/unredacted portions reviewed and not reversible error |
| Batson/challenge to strikes of venire members | Prosecutor offered a race-neutral, genuine reason for strikes | Strikes were pretextual and discriminatory | Court accepted State’s race-neutral reasons; no Batson error found |
Key Cases Cited
- Rolling v. State, 695 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1997) (trial court suppression rulings presumed correct; appellate review standards)
- Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1993) (well-founded articulable suspicion required for investigatory stops)
- State v. Jemison, 171 So. 3d 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reasonable suspicion may exist from a relatively generic BOLO combined with supporting factors)
- Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1995) (factors relevant to BOLO-based stops: time/distance, route, specificity, source)
- Walker v. City of Pompano Beach, 763 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (bare-bones BOLO insufficient absent supporting details)
- Monfiston v. State, 924 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (stop reasonable where vehicle matched BOLO, acted suspiciously and changed behavior)
- State v. Wong, 990 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (vehicle matching BOLO near likely exit supported stop)
- State v. Gelin, 844 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (predictive positioning based on likely exit routes can support BOLO stop)
- Gaines v. State, 155 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (appellate standard: accept trial court factual findings supported by substantial competent evidence)