FL5: Stop for jaywalking did not justify patdown

Defendant juvenile was stopped for jaywalking, and, while talking to defendant, the officer was concerned because the defendant would not remove his hands from his pockets. This did not justify his patdown. D.B.P. v. State, 31 So. 3d 883 (Fla. App. 5th DCA 2010):

Here, when the officer asked the defendant to take his hands out of his pockets, the request constituted a police order given the circumstances. See Dees v. State, 564 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The reason for the investigatory stop or nonconsensual detainment was the officer’s concern about a pedestrian violation, specifically, the failure to use a pedestrian crosswalk. The infraction cited by the officer was noncriminal. Although the refusal by a person to remove his or her hands from pockets might well constitute part of the basis authorizing a pat down for weapons in some circumstances, under the well-established case law of this state, the facts presented here do not amount to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the search.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. It might be tempting to conclude that because the officer found a firearm when he searched D.B.P, the search was reasonable. The success of the search, however, is not now and never has been the test to be applied. Applying the established law to the facts of this case, it is clear that the search was not reasonable, and that the motion to suppress should have been granted. See § 901.151(6), Fla. Stat. (2009). Accordingly, we reverse the denial of the motion to suppress, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Defendant was not in custody when he consented to the taking of a DNA sample, and the evidence showed that it was voluntary. United States v. Pumpkin Seed, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99161 (D.S.D. September 17, 2007).*

Defendant’s stop for running a stop sign was justified, even though the officer had defendant under investigation for a controlled buy. He smelled marijuana, and he had probable cause to search for that marijuana, weapons, and evidence of the controlled buy. State v. Armstrong, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 241 (March 18, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.