Defendant’s act of driving slowly in area where police were
conducting search for fugitive was insufficient to justify a stop. Order
granting defendant’s motion to suppress affirmed. State v. Quinn, No.
CRC 05-54 APANO, (
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME FOR REHEARING EXPIRES
AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
STATE OF
Appellant,
v. Appeal No. CRC 05-54 APANO
UCN522005AP000054XXXXCR
LINDA QUINN
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed ____________________.
Appeal from a decision of the
County Judge William Overton
Hutch Pinder, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney
Michael Moore, Esq.
Assistant Public Defender
ORDER AND OPINION
(J. Morris)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the State’s appeal from an order entered by the Pinellas County Court granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the decision of the trial court.
At approximately 1:30 in the morning, the police were investigating the theft of an automobile. The suspect had abandoned the automobile and was fleeing on foot. One deputy noticed the defendant driving slowly in the area; it appeared to the deputy that the defendant was driving back and forth, looking for something. Suspecting that the defendant was in the area to assist the fleeing suspect, the deputy radioed for a fellow deputy to stop the defendant. When the fellow deputy stopped the defendant, it was discovered that the defendant appeared to be DUI. The police conducted an investigation, and the defendant was ultimately arrested for DUI. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress, and the State is appealing that decision.
The defendant contends that the police had no reason to stop her because they had no reasonable suspicion that she was doing anything wrong. The trial court agreed with her and granted her motion to suppress. This Court affirms the trial court’s decision.
Although
the State does not contend that the defendant committed any offense --- traffic
or otherwise --- it does contend that as part of their perimeter investigation
the police were justified in stopping the defendant. The State contends that
the police had set up a perimeter as part of their on-going operation to
apprehend the suspect. In a perimeter or roadblock situation, officers may,
under the appropriate circumstances, stop all of those going through the
perimeter or roadblock without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. See McNamee
v. State, 906 So.2d 1171 (
A thorough review of the transcript, however, reveals that there is insufficient testimony to support the State’s contention that the defendant was stopped as a result of a perimeter investigation or a roadblock. Although the arresting deputy testified that a perimeter investigation was being conducted, it was not established that the police had sealed off a particular area and were stopping every vehicle either coming out of the area or going into it. Neither was it established where the defendant was stopped in relation to the alleged perimeter investigation. It was not established if the defendant was entering the search area, leaving it, or just happened to be inside or near it at the time the investigation began. There is nothing in the record to contradict the appearance that the police only singled out the defendant’s vehicle to stop. The police cannot randomly stop individuals within a particular area without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
To justify a stop in the case at bar the police must establish that they had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity. There is nothing, however, in the record to support a claim that the police had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity. The testimony only showed that the defendant was driving slowly through the area, going back and forth, possibly looking for something or someone. This is innocent behavior.
The deputy
testified that the only reason for the stop was that the suspect may have had a
cell phone on him, had called the defendant, and the defendant was in the area
to pick him up. It is, however, pure speculation that the defendant was
summoned via a cell phone by the suspect to assist in his escape. There is no
evidence that the suspect had a cell phone or called anyone --- let alone the
defendant --- asking them to drive to the area to assist in his escape from the
police. The police had no information whatsoever to link the defendant with the
suspect. Reasonable suspicion must be based upon specific articulable facts ---
not speculation or a mere hunch. Faunce v. State, 884 So.2d 504 (
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress is affirmed.
DONE
AND ORDERED in Chambers at
_____________________________
David A. Demers
Circuit Judge
_____________________________
Robert J. Morris, Jr.
Circuit Judge
____________________________
Irene H. Sullivan
Circuit Judge
cc: State Attorney
Public Defender
Judge Overton