Presley v. State
204 So. 3d 84
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped in the early morning in a high-crime area; one passenger had fled and was detained and handcuffed.
- Officer Pandak arrived as backup, told appellant not to leave, spoke with him, and asked for identifying information.
- Appellant volunteered he had been drinking; a records check revealed he was on probation prohibited from consuming alcohol.
- Officer Pandak arrested appellant for violating probation; a search incident to arrest recovered cocaine.
- Appellant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the officer unlawfully detained him (no reasonable suspicion) by preventing him from leaving the traffic stop.
- Trial court found the detention to be an investigative detention supported by reasonable suspicion; this appeal concerns whether detaining a passenger for the duration of a lawful traffic stop without individualized suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an officer may detain a passenger for the duration of a lawful traffic stop without individualized reasonable suspicion | Officer lacked reasonable suspicion to keep passenger at scene; detention violated Fourth Amendment | Officer may detain passengers as a matter of course during a lawful stop for officer safety; limited intrusion is minimal (relying on Aguiar) | An officer may, as a matter of course, detain a passenger during a lawful traffic stop without violating the passenger’s Fourth Amendment rights; judgment affirmed |
| Whether evidence found after arrest should be suppressed following alleged unlawful detention | Evidence should be suppressed because initial detention was unlawful | Evidence admissible because detention was lawful and arrest supported by probation condition admission | Detention lawful; suppression inappropriate; conviction/probation revocation stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (driver may be ordered out of vehicle during lawful stop; intrusion de minimis)
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (officers may order passengers out of vehicle during lawful stop; intrusion minimal)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (passengers are "seized" during a vehicle stop)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (for duration of traffic stop officers effectively seize all occupants; Terry pat-down framework applies)
- Aguiar v. State, 199 So.3d 920 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (en banc) (passengers may be detained for duration of stop as a matter of course; court-certified conflict with Wilson)
- Wilson v. State, 734 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding detaining a passenger for the duration is more than a de minimis intrusion; certified as in conflict)