Hadley v. State

Citations: 43 So. 3d 113; 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 12184; 2010 WL 3239152Docket: No. 3D08-1857

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 18, 2010; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Shuler Rod Hadley appeals the denial of his motion to suppress a firearm found on him during a stop and frisk by police, claiming the stop violated both the United States and Florida constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The key issue is whether the police had reasonable suspicion based on a reliable tip from a witness who provided her name and detailed information about the suspect, along with the officer's observations. The court affirms the denial, citing Article I, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, which aligns with the Fourth Amendment. It notes that police may stop and pat down individuals based on informant tips if those tips establish reasonable suspicion. Citing relevant case law, the court emphasizes that not all tips are equally valuable; their reliability can vary significantly. Anonymous tips generally have low reliability unless corroborated by independent investigation. The court references Alabama v. White, which states that a tip must include detailed predictions about future actions to be corroborated. It also cites Florida v. J.L., where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an anonymous tip alone, without additional evidence of illegal conduct, was insufficient to justify a stop and frisk. Ultimately, the court concludes that the reliability of the witness's tip and the officer's observations provided the necessary reasonable suspicion for the stop.

The police relied on a report from an unknown informant without any details about the informant's knowledge or credibility regarding the presence of a gun. The Court distinguished this case from *White*, where an anonymous tip provided specific, corroborated details about a suspect’s actions, justifying a stop due to reasonable suspicion. Tips from "citizen informants," or average citizens who witness or become victims of crimes, hold a high reliability standard and can justify a Terry stop on their own. For instance, in *Maynard*, a tipster identified herself as the suspect’s mother and described the suspect in detail, allowing for identification and a lawful stop despite no illegal activity occurring at that moment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed this due to the tipster's identifiable nature and genuine concern for safety.

In the current case, the defendant challenges the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, relying on *J.L.*, which ruled that an anonymous tip about carrying a gun is insufficient for a stop. However, the defendant's reliance is deemed misplaced as the tip in question was not anonymous; it originated from Lorene Adams, who identified herself and provided her phone number. As a victim and witness of crimes, her tip is categorized as highly reliable, meeting the criteria for a citizen informant due to her identifiable nature, the urgency of her report concerning public safety, and her direct experience with the reported incidents. This case aligns more closely with precedents that uphold tips from identifiable victims than with the *J.L.* ruling.

The citizen informant's tip was sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion for stopping the defendant, bolstered by additional reliability indicators. Unlike the tip in Florida v. J.L., which only alleged a weapon, the current tip reported a crime and included specific details about the alleged shooter: an armed black male wearing a blue cap, white T-shirt, and blue jeans. Officer Jordan Fried corroborated this information before approaching the defendant by observing him at Bunche Park Pool, where he matched the description and notably stood out for not wearing a bathing suit. The defendant's sagging shorts suggested he might be carrying a heavy object, aligning with the report of him being armed. When approached by officers, the defendant exhibited alarm and attempted to flee, contrasting with the passive behavior of the suspect in J.L. Officer Fried's corroborative observations strengthened the reasonable suspicion established by the tip. Consequently, the investigatory stop and subsequent pat down were justified, and the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress the firearm found on the defendant. The decision was affirmed.