KS v. State, 85 So. 3d 566

K.S., a juvenile, challenged a denial of her motion to suppress after pleading to concealed weapon, cannabis, and paraphernalia.
A female officer stopped a parked, running car with headlights on but tag light off, a nonmoving violation.
The juvenile exited the vehicle during the stop; a pat-down revealed a hard object later identified as a weed grinder and tested positive for cannabis.
A male officer searched the juvenile's purse, uncovering a pepper spray bottle deemed a concealed weapon; disposition and guilt were entered.
Defense argued there was no movement on a public road and the stop was illegal; State argued the tag-light violation justified the stop and pat-down.
Trial court denied suppression; on appeal, the court reversed and remanded, finding the pat-down unsupported by probable cause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the stop for the inoperable tag light lawful when the car was parked?	K.S. argues the stop was unlawful since the violation was nonmoving.	State contends stop for tag light was valid and permissible to approach for citation.	Yes; stop valid as nonmoving violation
Was there reasonable suspicion to exit and frisk the juvenile?	K.S. challenged the frisk as unwarranted without articulable suspicion.	State relies on furtive rummaging and safety concerns to justify pat-down.	No; frisk not supported by articulable suspicion
Was the pat-down search justified to seize the weed grinder as a weapon precursor?	K.S. contends no probable cause to believe armed or dangerous.	State contends reasonable belief of risk permits pat-down; object later identified as cannabis-related.	No; pat-down invalid; evidence suppressed
Did the initial illegal pat-down taint subsequent searches of purse and vehicle?	Illegality of stop/pat-down invalidates later searches.	Evidence arising from legitimate stop could be admissible if independently justified.	Yes; reversal and remand to vacate disposition

State v. Holland, 76 So.3d 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (standard for reviewing suppression orders)
Dewberry v. State, 905 So.2d 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (probable cause required for weapons pat-downs)
Brown v. State, 863 So.2d 459 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (furtive movements may be considered in arming-danger assessment)
D.L.J. v. State, 932 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (routine pat-downs without articulable suspicion impermissible)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (reasonable suspicion standard for stop-and-frisk)
Sutton v. State, 698 So.2d 1321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (stop and frisk authority for reasonable indications of violation)
State v. Petion, 992 So.2d 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (valid stop for inoperable taillamp; vehicle may be stopped for nonmoving violation)
Smith v. State, 925 So.2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (probable cause akin to reasonable suspicion for armed status)