80 So. 3d 1125
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Sergeant dispatched to a high-crime area for an armed robbery; BOLO described two white males fleeing on foot.
- Approximately 12:30 a.m., appellant and another man were encountered about three blocks from the robbery area, within three minutes of dispatch.
- The sergeant detained them without knowing if they were involved and directed them to place hands on a patrol car hood.
- An officer later patted down appellant and felt a bulge in the right pocket; appellant allowed removal of the bulge, revealing a bag of marijuana.
- Appellant's motion to suppress was denied; he pled no contest and reserved appellate rights; the issue concerns the validity of the stop under reasonable-suspicion standards.
- The court reviews the suppression ruling de novo and reverses, holding the BOLO lacked sufficient specificity to justify the stop; it cites several prior Florida cases on BOLO-based stops.
- Reversed and remanded to discharge appellant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BOLO-based stop violated the Fourth Amendment by lacking reasonable suspicion. | Appellant (Padgett) likely argues lack of reasonable suspicion based on vague BOLO. | State contends BOLO and surrounding circumstances provided reasonable suspicion. | Yes; lack of reasonable suspicion; stop reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185 (Fla.1993) (reasonable suspicion required for investigatory stop)
- Jean v. State, 987 So.2d 196 (Fla.4th DCA 2008) (proximity to scene alone not enough; need suspicious conduct)
- Pantin v. State, 872 So.2d 1000 (Fla.4th DCA 2004) (BOLOs with bare bones description insufficient)
- Sapp v. State, 763 So.2d 1257 (Fla.4th DCA 2000) (insufficient specificity in BOLO for stop)
- L.T.S. v. State, 391 So.2d 695 (Fla.1st DCA 1980) (BOLO descriptions lacking specificity)
- Taylor v. State, 695 So.2d 503 (Fla.2d DCA 1997) (limited BOLO descriptions may fail to justify stop)