Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

387 So. 2d 963

Docket No. 56245.

Hetland v. State

Robert Leslie HETLAND, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided September 11, 1980.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1980-09-11

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A valid stop and frisk may be based on information obtained from an anonymous tipster if that information appears sufficiently reliable because of the surrounding circumstances or the nature of the information given in the tip itself.”

quoted by 10 later decisions, including Swanson v. State, State v. Scott

Relies on State v. Hetland · John v. State · 380 So. 2d 457 - Byrd v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-09-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably State v. Webb (1981), 727 So. 2d 204 - J.L. v. State (1998)

86 state decisions

4701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Ellen Irene Hoffenberg, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for petitioner.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and William I. Munsey, Jr. and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The question in this case is whether a valid stop and frisk may be based on information obtained from an anonymous telephone caller. The District Court of Appeal, Second District, in the decision below, 366 So.2d 831, answered this question in the affirmative provided the anonymous tip bore sufficient indicia of reliability. In reaching its decision the court expressly receded from the rule announced in its prior decision in State v. Hendry,309 So.2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, however, relied on State v. Hendry in reaching a negative response to this question. St. John v. State,363 So.2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). But cf. Byrd v. State,380 So.2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Isham v. State,369 So.2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Conflict jurisdiction therefore vests in this Court pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (1972).

¶5We agree with the District Court of Appeal, Second District, that an inflexible rule based on the anonymous nature of the tip would not be appropriate in all instances without regard to the other circumstances involved. A valid stop and frisk may be based on information obtained from an anonymous tipster if that information appears sufficiently reliable because of the surrounding circumstances or the nature of the information given in the tip itself.

¶6Since it would serve no useful purpose to expand upon the exhaustive and well reasoned analysis of the district court below, we hereby adopt its opinion as our own. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is granted and the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, is approved. We disapprove of the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in St. John v. State to the extent it is inconsistent with our decision today.

¶7It is so ordered.

¶8SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.

/387/so2d/963 · .json · Public domain