Florida Stop and Frisk Law

Florida Stop and Frisk Law

• Under F.S.§901.151, law enforcement officers can temporarily detain a person if they reasonably believe the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.
• The detention is limited to the time necessary to investigate and must be in the immediate vicinity where the detention was made.

Frisking

• A frisk can be conducted to feel for weapons, and it's essentially a "pat-down" of the suspect.
• The officer can pat-down a citizen's bag or container if they have the right to frisk the individual.
• A frisk is not a full-blown search, but a self-protective procedure to feel for weapons.
• An officer must have a reasonable suspicion to conduct a frisk, and it's not a routine procedure.

Violent Crimes

• An officer can base a reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk on various factors, including observing a dangerous or suspicious movement, or confirming an anonymous tip.
• If an officer suspects a violent crime, they can frisk the suspect.

Bulge Seen on Suspect

• If an officer sees a bulge on a suspect, they can frisk the suspect, but only if they can identify a weapon or if there's some other indication of criminal activity.
• If the officer can't identify a weapon, a frisk is only authorized if the officer is responding to a report of a crime involving a weapon.

Presence at Scene of a Crime

• An officer cannot frisk a suspect merely because they are present at the scene of a crime.
• There must be some other factual basis to reasonably believe the suspect is involved in the crime.

Fruits of a Weapons Search

• If an officer finds contraband during a frisk, it's admissible evidence if the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the frisk.
• The contraband must be instantly recognizable by "plain feel."

Use of Handcuffs

• Handcuffing a person during a stop and frisk is reasonable when circumstances justify the use of restraint.
• The continued use of handcuffs after the pat-down is illegal.

Investigatory Stops

• There must be a well-founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot for an investigatory stop.
• A "hunch" alone is not enough for an investigatory search.
• Officers must articulate reasons for their suspicions.

Pat-Down for Weapons

• A police officer can conduct a weapons search if there is probable cause to believe the person is armed.

Questioning

• Police may initiate questioning in a public place, and citizens may voluntarily cooperate.
• If the contact between the police officer and citizen evokes voluntary cooperation, the encounter is not a seizure.

Illegal Search and Seizure

• A consent to search given after illegal police conduct is presumptively tainted and deemed involuntary.
• However, if there is a clear break in the chain of official illegal action, the consent may be valid.

Identification Requirement

• When a person is stopped based on reasonable suspicion, they must identify themselves.

• If they refuse, they can be arrested.

• A suspect may be compelled to furnish a blood sample, handwriting exemplar, or voice exemplar.### Admissibility of Eyewitness Identification

• The admissibility of eyewitness identification depends on its reliability and suggestiveness, which is determined by the totality of the circumstances.

• Factors examined to determine reliability and suggestiveness include:

  • The opportunity of the witness to view the suspect at the time of the crime (length of time, lighting, face-to-face or side view, etc.)
  • The witness' degree of attention
  • The accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal
  • The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation
  • The length of time between the crime and the confrontation

Cases

• In Davis v. State (2000), the court upheld a show-up identification conducted two hours after the crime.
• In Tumblin v. State (1999), the in-court identification was still reliable despite the victim failing to pick the defendant out of a pre-trial photo lineup.

Eyewitness Identification Reform Act

• The Act, F.S. § 92.70, passed in 2017, creates new requirements for lineups conducted in Florida.
• Requirements include:
  • The lineup must be conducted by an independent administrator.
  • In lieu of an independent administrator, a law enforcement agency may conduct a photo lineup using an alternative method that achieves neutral administration.
  • Alternative methods include:
    • Automated computer programs
    • Procedures using folders with randomly numbered and shuffled photographs
    • Any other procedure that achieves neutral administration and prevents the lineup administrator from knowing which photograph is being presented.

Pre-Lineup Instructions

• Before a lineup, the eyewitness must be instructed that:
  • The perpetrator might or might not be in the lineup
  • The lineup administrator does not know the suspect's identity
  • The eyewitness should not feel compelled to make an identification
  • It is as important to exclude innocent persons as it is to identify the perpetrator
  • The investigation will continue with or without an identification

Consequences of Noncompliance

• A failure to comply with any requirement of the Eyewitness Identification Reform Act may be considered by the court when adjudicating motions to suppress eyewitness identification.
• A failure to comply with any requirement of the Act is admissible in support of a claim of eyewitness misidentification.
• If evidence of compliance or noncompliance is presented at trial, the jury shall be instructed to consider credible evidence of compliance or noncompliance to determine the reliability of eyewitness identifications.