State of Florida v. Ricky Alphonso Rand
2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 1634
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- At ~2:00 a.m. in March 2014 a Duval County school-district police officer saw Ricky Rand on a middle-school track campus, shone a light on him, and immediately arrested him for trespassing; a subsequent search revealed a handgun.
- The school posted signs stating track access restrictions during school hours (7 a.m.–4 p.m.); other evidence showed the school left the track gate open at night and the public used the track after hours.
- The State conceded at the suppression hearing that (1) the posted signs authorized after-hours track use, (2) Rand was exercising on the track (a legitimate purpose), and (3) the officer made no investigation before arresting him.
- The State argued Heien v. North Carolina allowed the arrest because the officer made an objectively reasonable mistake of law.
- The trial court granted Rand’s motion to suppress for lack of probable cause; the appellate majority affirmed, concluding the officer’s failure to heed the conspicuous posted policy and to investigate was not an objectively reasonable legal mistake.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rand) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had probable cause to arrest for trespass despite signs and open gate | Heien permits arrests based on an objectively reasonable mistake of law; officer reasonably (though mistakenly) believed trespass occurred | Rand: posted signs and open gate authorized after-hours use; no probable cause and no investigation | Held: No probable cause — officer’s disregard of obvious posted policy and failure to investigate was not an objectively reasonable mistake; suppression affirmed |
| Whether Heien controls when the law appears unambiguous | State: Heien allows mistakes of law to justify probable cause if reasonable | Rand: This case differs from Heien because the law/policy here was evident from signs and practice | Held: Heien inapplicable — Heien involved an ambiguous statute; here the officer ignored conspicuous, on-site policy and district practice |
| Admissibility of hearsay about principal’s instruction to keep campus clear after hours | State relied on officer’s account; trial court discounted hearsay; State argued it explained officer’s belief | Rand: Trial court properly discounted uncorroborated hearsay; officer’s own training mandated investigation | Held: Trial court permissibly discounted the principal-hearsay and relied on contemporaneous, observable evidence; hearsay did not justify the arrest |
| Whether a Terry stop or other officer-safety justifications would salvage the search | State did not preserve an inevitable-discovery or full Terry-stop/safety rationale below | Rand: Officer did not assert need for pat-down or safety justification before arrest | Held: Court declined to consider unpreserved hypothetical Terry/inevitable-discovery arguments; suppression decision rests on lack of probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (Fourth Amendment tolerates objectively reasonable mistakes of law for reasonable suspicion/probable cause analysis)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (limited stops and protective frisks require specific and articulable facts)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule governs unlawfully seized evidence)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (appellate review: historical facts deferential, legal application of probable cause reviewed de novo)
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979) (validity of an arrest does not depend on suspect’s actual guilt)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (probable cause is an assessment of probabilities)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (reasonableness judged from officer’s on-scene perspective)