State of Florida v. Douglas Dickey
203 So. 3d 958
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Deputy observed a stopped vehicle and Appellee at the driver’s door; deputy activated lights but did not pursue; approached to "see what was going on."
- Appellee gave the name "Shawn Williams" during what the deputy characterized as a consensual encounter; the deputy later concluded the name was false after a female identified him.
- Deputy handcuffed Appellee for officer safety, conducted a patdown, found a knife and a wallet Appellee said he did not have, then ran prints which disclosed an outstanding felony arrest warrant.
- After arrest on the warrant, the deputy searched incident to arrest and found suspected crack cocaine on Appellee; roughly 1–1.5 minutes elapsed between handcuffing and discovery of the cocaine.
- Trial court granted Appellee’s motion to suppress the contraband, finding the detention, handcuffing, patdown, and wallet seizure were unlawful; State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Dickey's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the initial encounter a lawful detention or arrest? | Encounter was consensual and lawful inquiries justified actions | Encounter was consensual; deputy unlawfully detained and handcuffed him | Court: deputy unlawfully detained, handcuffed, and patted down Dickey |
| Did discovery of the outstanding warrant purge the taint of the unlawful stop? | Warrant was an intervening circumstance that attenuated the taint | Warrant was discovered only because officers exploited the illegal stop; attenuation fails | Court: attenuation failed; suppression proper |
| Was giving a false name a crime that justified detention? | False name justified further investigation/detention | False name is not a crime absent a lawful stop or arrest | Court: agreeing with Dickey, false name alone did not criminalize the conduct here |
| Was the patdown/search that produced contraband valid under Terry or incident-to-arrest? | Search incident to arrest on warrant validated the seizure of contraband | Search flowed from an unlawful seizure and identity-exploitation; evidence is fruit of illegality | Court: search was fruit of unlawful seizure and not sufficiently attenuated; evidence suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Frierson, 926 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2006) (applies Brown factors to determine when an outstanding arrest warrant attenuates an illegal stop)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (establishes attenuation/fruit of the poisonous tree analysis)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1975) (sets three-factor test for attenuation: time, intervening circumstances, purpose/flagrancy of misconduct)
- Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (U.S. 2016) (recognizes pre-existing arrest warrants can be a critical intervening circumstance attenuating an illegal stop in some cases)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1993) (limits scope of protective frisk to weapons discovery)
- State v. Hummons, 253 P.3d 275 (Ariz. 2011) (holding that stops intended to discover warrants cannot be validated by the subsequent discovery of a warrant)
- Sanchez v. State, 803 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (refuses attenuation where officers continued to exploit an illegal detention to verify identity and find a warrant)