Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

620 So. 2d 1080

Docket No. 92-01622.

MJS v. State

M.J.S., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 25, 1993.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1993-06-25

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the appellant was involved in criminal activity.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 689 So. 2d 1240 - Welch v. State, 693 So. 2d 1086 - State v. James

“Although the officer’s actions started out as a permissible police/citizen encounter, once the officer put his hand on the appellant’s shoulder, the appellant was seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 , 111 S.Ct. 1547 , 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991). Thereafter, the officer’s order to “spit it out” constituted an illegal search.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. E.S.

Relies on California v. Hodari D. · 564 So. 2d 593 - Williams v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-06-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 2018

9 state decisions

70199320002010decided

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 →

¶1James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Cynthia J. Dodge, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

¶3PATTERSON, Judge.

¶4The appellant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. He argues that the evidence was obtained during an illegal search and seizure. We agree and reverse.

¶5The testimony at the suppression hearing reveals that Officer Michael Samms of the Lakeland Police Department approached *1081 the appellant, who was standing on the porch of a house under surveillance for drug activity. The appellant was startled by the officer's appearance and attempted to conceal something in his mouth. The officer put his hand on the appellant's shoulder and told the appellant that if he had just put drugs in his mouth he needed to "spit it out" because they would make him "real ill." The appellant spit out several pieces of rock cocaine and Officer Samms placed him under arrest.

¶6The appellant's movements did not give the police officer a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the appellant was involved in criminal activity. See Williams v. State,564 So.2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Although the officer's actions started out as a permissible police/citizen encounter, once the officer put his hand on the appellant's shoulder, the appellant was seized within the meaning of the fourth amendment. California v. Hodari D.,499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991). Thereafter, the officer's order to "spit it out" constituted an illegal search. Williams,564 So.2d at 594.

¶7Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court for the suppression of the evidence.

¶8SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.

/620/so2d/1080 · .json · Public domain