564 So. 2d 503 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1990
We are once again confronted with a Kehoe
Neither Locke nor Pederson supplied any basis for the stop, other than the pretextual one. It is possible that Thames could have provided probable cause, but he was not at the hearing. Under Kehoe, we have no alternative but to reverse the conviction for possession of cannabis based upon the improper, and dispositive, denial of the suppression motion. See also, Monroe v. State, 543 So.2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Porcher v. State, 538 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
. Kehoe v. State, 521 So.2d 1094 (Fla.1988).