McKelvin v. State
53 So. 3d 401
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- McKelvin challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress after pleading no contest to firearm by felon and cocaine possession.
- Detectives received an anonymous in-person tip alleging narcotics activity by a black male in a burgundy Dodge Charger with specific description and a known tag number.
- Officers stopped a matching Charger at a motel; the driver allegedly removed a gun from his waistband and threw a bag containing white rock-like substances to the floor.
- The trial court ruled the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion due to the tip and the detailed information supplied by the informant.
- On appeal, the court reviewed the suppression ruling de novo and reversed, concluding there was no reasonable suspicion because there was no corroboration or reliable basis for the tip.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | McKelvin argues the anonymous tip lacked reliability and corroboration. | McKelvin's name used here; the State argues the face-to-face tip is reliable and corroborated by observations. | Stop lacked reasonable suspicion; suppression reversed |
| Whether a face-to-face tip from a citizen informant elevates reliability over anonymous tips | Tip from citizen informant should be reliable due to direct approach and accountability. | Reliability depends on corroboration; no independent contact information for informant. | No sufficient reliability; not controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuentes v. State, 24 So.3d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (reasonable suspicion required for investigatory stops)
- Baptiste v. State, 995 So.2d 285 (Fla.2008) (face-to-face informants have higher reliability than anonymous tips)
- J.P.N. v. State, 931 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (face-to-face tip with corroboration can sustain a stop)
- Pinkney v. State, 666 So.2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (anonymous tips require corroboration to establish reasonable suspicion)
- Solino v. State, 763 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (distinguishes anonymous from face-to-face informants when identity is unknown)
- Rewis v. State, 722 So.2d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (face-to-face informant reliability varies with context)
- Dixon v. State, 36 So.3d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (standard of review: defer to trial court on factual findings; de novo on law)