141 So. 3d 687
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- R.A.S. was alleged delinquent after possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia following an encounter with a Hillsborough County deputy.
- Deputy sought to locate R.A.S. for truancy and offered him a ride to school; R.A.S. accepted.
- Deputy directed R.A.S. to empty his pockets; R.A.S. emptied all but one back pocket.
- Deputy performed a pat-down of the pocket and felt a squishy bulge, leading to discovery of contraband.
- Circuit court denied suppression; R.A.S. pled no contest reserving appeal on suppression issue.
- Court reverses for dismissal, holding the initial search was unlawful and tainted any later consent or seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether initial search of pockets was lawful | R.A.S. contends the deputy conducted an unauthorized full search | The deputy conducted a pat-down and asked about contents; stop short of full search | Initial search unlawful; tainted evidence fruits suppression |
| Whether consent to a pat-down was valid | Consent flowed from tainted initial search | Consent independent of unlawful search | Consent invalidated by taint from unlawful search |
| Whether custodial status of a truancy stop triggers arrest-based search rules | Truancy detention is custodial but not an arrest; warrant exception not apply | Officer safety allows limited frisk; no full search warranted | No arrest-based search justified; pat-down alone insufficient to justify discovery of contraband |
| Remedy for suppression ruling | Suppression should be upheld; tainted evidence | Motion should be denied | Judgment of dismissal for suppression is required |
Key Cases Cited
- A.B.S. v. State, 51 So.3d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (truancy detention; search incident to custody not arrest; limit on searches of juveniles)
- L.C. v. State, 23 So.3d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (pat-downs before placing in vehicle; no full search without pat-down)
- E.B. v. State, 866 So.2d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (pat-down does not include a search into pockets; taint analysis)
- Sanders v. State, 732 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (pat-down effect; orders to remove items can constitute search)
- Grant v. State, 978 So.2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (fruit of the poisonous tree; no break in illegality for juveniles)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (exclusionary rule; tainted evidence cannot be used)
- J.R.H. v. State, 428 So.2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (no unequivo cal break in chain of illegality)