5D01-1839 A.D.J. v. State

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2002 » 5D01-1839 A.D.J. v. State

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D01-1839

Case Date: 02/25/2002

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2002

A. D. J., A Child, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D01-1839 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed March 1, 2002 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, John W. Watson, III, Judge. Hubert L. Grimes, Judge. James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Jane C. AlmyLoewinger, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alfred Washington, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. COBB, J. The defendant below, A.D.J., was adjudicated a delinquent as a result of his convictions for possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) and tampering with evidence. He appeals that adjudication. The facts, as set forth in the state's brief are not in dispute: On December 16, 2000, Detectives William Brown, Robert Dockery, and Kelsey Harris, received a radio dispatch to proceed to Bethune Village Market ("Market") concerning individuals harassing customers and selling narcotics. Both

Detectives Brown and Dockery were in plain clothes and driving unmarked cars, and Detective Harris was in full police uniform and driving a marked police vehicle. Once the detectives had arrived at the Market, the Appellant was the first person they observed standing on the easternmost side of the Market. When the detectives had exited their vehicles they observed the Appellant take his right hand and place a tan cake-like substance, later identified as cocaine, into his mouth and begin chewing; then the Appellant turned and fled on foot inside the Market. Detectives Brown and Dockery followed the Appellant inside the Market and observed him run into an area designated for employees only, and they also observed him chewing and trying to find a way out of the Market before making contact with him. When the Appellant had turned and come back toward the detectives, he was detained and observed with the tan cake-like substance on his chin and around his lips. Detective Dockery testified that once contact was made with the Appellant, he walked to the front of the Market where he contacted the manager and verified that the Appellant was the guy the manager was talking about. Upon detention and observation, Detective Brown went to his vehicle and retrieved a swab for Detective Dockery, and Dockery swabbed the substance observed on the Appellant's chin and tested it with a Morris Kopeck field test which returned a positive presumptive test for cocaine. The field test was not saved because of the acid used with the test, and no evidence was sent to the FDLE because there was not enough substance to send due to the Appellant eating tan cake-like substance (cocaine). Thereafter, the Appellant was arrested. [Cites omitted]. The first argument raised by A.D.J. is that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence. We agree with the state that the tip in the instant case came from an identifiable citizen-informant, the market manager. See State v. Maynard, 783 So. 2d 226, 230 (Fla. 2001). In Maynard the court cited one commentator as explaining: [T]he courts have quite properly drawn a distinction between [informers likely to have been involved in the criminal activity] and the average citizen who by happenstance finds himself in the position of a victim of or a witness to criminal conduct and 2

thereafter relates to the police what he knows as a matter of civic duty. One who qualifies as the latter type of individual, sometimes referred to as a "citizen-informer," is more deserving of a presumption of reliability than the informant from the criminal milieu. (Quoting Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure

Download 5D01-1839 A.D.J. v. State.pdf