State of Florida v. Pharoh Jemison
171 So. 3d 808
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Officer received BOLO of a burglary describing a "newer white Toyota Tacoma pickup with dark tinted windows," issued from a 911 caller who left contact information (victim).
- Officer Bennett positioned himself on the only known egress (Nob Hill Road) from the development within minutes of the BOLO and encountered a vehicle matching the BOLO within six minutes.
- Bennett followed the truck without lights/sirens for under ten minutes as traffic was light; the truck circled a neighborhood and its plate traced to an address ~10 minutes away.
- Additional units converged; at an intersection the truck allegedly drove over a curb/median and turned on a red light, then accelerated away; one officer later issued a red-light ticket.
- Defendant was arrested and charged with aggravated fleeing/ eluding, aggravated assault on an officer, burglary of a conveyance, petit theft, resisting without violence, and possession of cannabis; defendant moved to suppress evidence from the stop.
- Trial court granted suppression; State appealed arguing the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion under the totality of circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BOLO + observations provided reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop | BOLO (vehicle description + victim source), rapid encounter (6 min), officer positioned at only exit, matching vehicle, and evasive driving created founded suspicion | BOLO was "bare bones" and lacked specifics (no occupants, no direction); thus stop was unjustified | Reversed: totality (timing, exit route, matching description, victim source, evasive conduct) gave reasonable suspicion |
| Whether trial court correctly found insufficient BOLO detail | State: BOLO included make/model/color/tint and victim as source, which is not anonymous | Defense: BOLO lacked occupants and directional specifics; too vague per precedent | Court: BOLO specificity sufficient when combined with other factors (route, timing, behavior) |
| Whether traffic infraction was necessary to justify the stop | State: stop lawful based on reasonable suspicion alone; later driving supported probable cause for arrest | Defense: no initial lawful basis; court noted uncertainty about traffic violations | Court assumed arguendo no traffic violation yet found reasonable suspicion nonetheless |
| Whether suppression of evidence was required | State: evidence admissible because stop lawful; subsequent evasive conduct reinforced probable cause | Defense: all evidence tainted by unlawful stop should be suppressed | Court reversed suppression and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1996) (presumption of correctness for trial court fact findings on suppression)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (reasonable suspicion assessed under the totality of the circumstances)
- Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1995) (factors relevant to BOLO-based stops: time/distance, route of flight, description specificity, source)
- Pantin v. State, 872 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (a “bare bones” BOLO without corroboration insufficient for stop)
- Monfiston v. State, 924 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (matching BOLO plus corroborating conduct can supply reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Wong, 990 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (vehicle matching BOLO near likely exit supported reasonable suspicion)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (seizure occurs only upon physical force or submission to show of authority)
- State v. Kirer, 120 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (flight after an order to stop supplies probable cause regardless of initial justification)