State v. KN
66 So. 3d 380
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- At about 2:00 a.m., a 911 call described a white Toyota with a passenger matching a burglar description in a high-theft area.
- Officer Adams conducted a high-risk stop after observing the vehicle and suspect in proximity to the caller’s residence.
- During the stop, Adams handcuffed Appellee and conducted a protective sweep; a flashlight and multitool were seen in plain view, and a laptop appeared in the trunk.
- After Miranda warnings, Appellee and cousin gave explanations; Adams believed probable cause existed for loitering/prowling and burglary-tools possession.
- The vehicle was inventoried; later, a home search located a handgun; suppression court found issues with the vehicle search under Gant and taint, but admitted the Dell computer from the trunk.
- Appellee challenged the stop, arrest, and searches; the State appealed the suppression rulings, and Appellee cross-appealed on an unlawful misdemeanor arrest claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the investigatory stop lawful? | State argues stop based on totality of circumstances. | Appellee argues lack of reasonable suspicion. | Stop supported by reasonable suspicion; stop lawful. |
| Did Gant render the vehicle search unlawful and taint later evidence? | State contends good-faith and plain-view exception; Gant should apply retroactively. | Appellee contends the search exceeded permissible scope under Gant. | Gant-applied analysis controlled; not suppressing later statements; remanded on vehicle-search taint. |
| Did Appellee have standing to challenge the vehicle search and subsequent searches? | State: as a passenger, Appellee lacks standing to challenge vehicle search. | Appellee lacks standing to challenge search but seeks suppression of incidental evidence. | Appellee lacks standing to challenge search of the vehicle; suppressed issues resolved accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits on vehicle searches after arrest; prompts suppression analysis)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (permit search of passenger compartment incident to lawful arrest)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978) (standing to challenge searches requires reasonable expectation of privacy)
- State v. Quinn, 41 So.3d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (totality of circumstances for reasonable suspicion in stop)
- Reynolds v. State, 592 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1992) (handcuffing in investigative detention permissible if temporary and reasonable for safety)