09-3458 STATE OF FLORIDA, v. STEPHEN M. DELUCA

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida First District Court » 2010 » 09-3458 STATE OF FLORIDA, v. STEPHEN M. DELUCA

State: Florida

Court: Florida First District Court

Docket No: 09-3458

Case Date: 07/16/2010

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 1D09-3458 STEPHEN M. DELUCA, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed July 16, 2010. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Mark E. Walker, Judge. Bill McCollum, Attorney General; and Thomas D. Winokur, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Paul M. Villeneuve, of the Law Office of Paul M. Villeneuve, Tallahassee, for Appellee. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

KAHN, J. The State seeks review of an order granting Stephen DeLuca's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of what the trial court called an illegal detention. The issue is whether officers had justification, based on a detailed 911 call, to detain DeLuca and investigate the report of his criminal activity. Because the trial court's characterization of the informant as an "anonymous tipster" relied

solely on information discovered after the detention commenced, and the totality of the circumstances indicate the police reasonably believed the incident report was verifiable and reliable when the detention began, we conclude the motion was granted in error. proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND No dispute exists as to the material facts leading to DeLuca's arrest. Around 1:30 a.m. on February 28, 2009, a police radio "be-on-the-lookout" (BOLO) dispatch reported two white men in a vehicle pulled a black 9-mm handgun on a man named Cecil Brown in the area of Carolina and Macomb Streets in Tallahassee. One of the gunmen reportedly wore a hat. This information derived from a 911 call to the police by a caller who identified himself as the victim, Cecil Brown. The caller provided a cell phone number where he could be reached, specifically described his clothing (bluejeans, a black turtleneck, and a green Miami Hurricanes jacket), identified his street corner location, and described the gunmen's vehicle as a black GMC Yukon bearing license plate number 285WZX and displaying a Florida State University decal on its rear window. The caller reported the vehicle was heading west near the 500 block of Tennessee Street. Under its standard procedure, the Tallahassee Police Department (TPD), after receiving a report from a victim of a violent street crime, dispatches to the 2 Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand for further

crime site to investigate the report and also attempts to pursue armed suspects based on the information in the BOLO. According to police records, at 1:33 a.m. the victim still reported he was at the same location, and TPD Officer Johnson (who did not testify at the suppression hearing) arrived in the vicinity of the reported crime at 1:34 or 1:35 a.m. Almost simultaneously, TPD Officer Harriett, then on patrol, heard another officer's report indicating the gunmen's vehicle was proceeding through the 1000-1100 block of West Tennessee Street. Yet a third officer reported seeing the GMC Yukon near Tennessee Street and High Road. No later than 1:39 or 1:40 a.m., Officer Harriett spotted the dark GMC Yukon and believed the two suspects were present. At that point, Officer Harriett knew the investigators had "lost contact" with Mr. Brown, as if the caller's phone were dead or disconnected. When Officer Harriett saw the vehicle, he knew other

investigators were still actively looking for Mr. Brown and were trying to reestablish phone contact with him, although unsuccessful so far. The unoccupied GMC Yukon, with the license tag number and FSU decal, exactly as reported, was parked in front of a gas station/convenience store at Tennessee and Call Streets, not far from the reported incident site. Although spying a number of people in the parking lot, Officer Harriett saw only two white men (one wearing a hat). These men stood directly beside the FSU decal-bearing GMC Yukon. Harriett believed the two men were the subjects of the 911 call. 3

Significantly outnumbered and knowing the men were reportedly armed, Officer Harriett exited his police vehicle and ordered everyone to sit on the ground for safety reasons. Everyone complied with the order except the white man who was not wearing a hat. At the suppression hearing, Officer Harriett ultimately identified appellee DeLuca as the man who refused to sit down. Harriett further explained that DeLuca maintained a defiant, threatening stance and demeanor despite repeated warnings to calm down, sit on the ground, and be still. DeLuca began cursing, crept toward the Yukon on all fours, and eventually lunged in front of the Yukon out of Harriett's sight. Officer Harriett ran to where he could see DeLuca and ordered DeLuca to show his hands. DeLuca refused this command and began "belly-crawling" toward the officer. TPD Officer Gates, by then on the scene, handcuffed DeLuca. During the detention, Officer Harriett looked under the

Yukon where DeLuca's arm had been and found several packets of white powder, some of which was cocaine. Sometime after the arrest, TPD determined it could not verify the call from Cecil Brown. DeLuca's companion, Prescott, claimed that he and DeLuca had a disagreement with a "panhandler" earlier. TPD never located the supposed Cecil Brown. Neither did officers find a handgun.

4

Charged with drug offenses and resisting without violence, DeLuca moved to suppress essential evidence on the grounds that the 911 caller was merely an anonymous tipster; the police had no independent corroboration of suspicious conduct by DeLuca to bolster the inherently unreliable tip and to justify detaining him; and, the resulting detention and investigation of DeLuca was illegal. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued the suppression order, finding that 1) the informant's communication was tantamount to an anonymous call and his tip was thus unreliable; 2) law enforcement lacked any independent corroboration of criminal activity involving DeLuca that would create a reasonable suspicion justifying an investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); 3) the resulting detention was illegal; and 4) the evidence seized during the detention must be suppressed pursuant to Baptiste v. State, 995 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2008). The court found the tipster left the area before the police responded and did not answer his cell phone when the dispatcher called him back. The court referred to evidence (acquired after the detention) that the informant "had a less than pure motive for the call": he was a panhandler who confronted DeLuca shortly before making the call. The State has appealed the order. We have jurisdiction. See Rule

9.140(c)(1)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

5

ANALYSIS We review the suppression order to determine whether competent substantial evidence supports the factual findings; we review de novo the trial court's application of the law to the facts. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996) (stating the ultimate determination of reasonable suspicion is an issue of law reviewed de novo); Connor v. State, 803 So. 2d 598, 608 (Fla. 2001). The trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress enjoys a presumption of correctness on appeal, and we review the evidence and all reasonable inferences from it in a light most favorable to sustaining the order. See Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 806 (Fla. 2002). Article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution requires Florida courts to construe search and seizure issues in conformity with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. See Holland v. State, 696 So. 2d 757, 759 (Fla. 1997). Unquestionably, Officer Harriett's order to the assembled crowd to sit on the ground was a "seizure" or detention for Fourth Amendment purposes. See Gipson v. State, 667 So. 2d 418, 419-20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). For a justified temporary detention, Officer Harriett must have had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See

Download 09-3458 STATE OF FLORIDA, v. STEPHEN M. DELUCA.pdf