FL5: Only matching description of anonymous caller’s burglary report wasn’t RS; nothing about def suggested he was a burglar

“In conclusion, the officers in this case corroborated nothing more than the innocent details of identification that matched Holliday’s appearance (other than the two snakes [wrapped around his neck], which the caller did not mention). The officers were entitled to attempt to question Holliday, but not to detain or physically seize him. Absent corroborating evidence of criminality, the caller’s information amounted to a ‘mere hunch,’ which is not sufficient to justify even a brief detention.” Holliday v. State, 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 7764 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 2, 2026).

These “officers were patrolling in a high crime area in Philadelphia in an unmarked car with tinted windows.” Seeing defendant they pulled part way onto the sidewalk and asked him whether he had anything in his cross-body bag. He said no. Then they pulled onto the sidewalk blocking it and confronted him again, and he fled. The stop was without reasonable suspicion, and the contents of the bag were properly suppressed. United States v. Teixera, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 30277 (3d Cir. Sep. 30, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.