Hetland v. State, 387 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Hetland v. State, 387 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1989 · 2 courts · …a valid stop and frisk may be based on information obtained from an anonymous tipster if that information appears sufficiently reliable because of the surrounding circumstances or the nature of the information given in the tip itself. ✓
113 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Milbin v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
In Aguilar we said: Officers may stop and frisk a person on a tip deemed sufficiently reliable, based on either "the surrounding circumstances or the nature of the information given in the tip itself." 700 So.2d at 59 (quoting Hetland v. State, 387 So.2d 963, 963 (Fla.1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aguilar v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Officers may stop and frisk a person on a tip deemed sufficiently reliable, based on either "the surrounding circumstances or the nature of the information given in the tip itself." Hetland v. State, 387 So.2d 963, 963 (Fla.1980).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Reyes
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1884 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 911 (1968); Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 946 , 133 *1093 L.Ed.2d 871 (1996); Franklin v. State, 374 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So.2d 1113 (Fla.1980); Lachs, 366 So.2d at 1223 ; see Hetland v. State, 387 So.2d 963 (Fla.1980).
cited Cited "see" Saunders v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hetland v. State, 387 So.2d 963 (Fla.1980); McKenzie v. State, 632 So.2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); C.F. v. State, 603 So.2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
cited Cited "see" State v. Hadden
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hetland, 366 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), approved, 387 So.2d 963 (Fla. 1980).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Wise
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hetland, 366 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) approved, 387 So.2d 963 (Fla. 1980) (section 901.151 is not intended and does not impose a standard different from that under the fourth amendment).
cited Cited "see" Mendez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hetland v. State, 387 So.2d 963 (Fla.1980); State v. Delgado, 402 So.2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Gamble, 370 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
cited Cited "see" Mosby v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hetland v. State, 387 So.2d 963 (Fla. 1980).
cited Cited "see" Stevens v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hetland v. State, 387 So.2d 963 (Fla.1980).
cited Cited "see" Johnson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hetland, 366 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), approved, 387 So.2d 963 (1980).
cited Cited "see" Ross v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hetland, 366 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), aff'd, 387 So.2d 963 (Fla. 1980), Lewis v. State, 337 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1977).
cited Cited "see" Thompson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hetland, 366 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), approved, 387 So.2d 963 (Fla. 1980).
cited Cited "see" State v. Hasenbank
Me. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hetland, Fla.App., 366 So.2d 831, 834 (1979), affirmed in Hetland v. State, Fla., 387 So.2d 963 (1980).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. JL
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.4(h), at 229-30 & nn. 404-06 (3d ed. 1996), and cases cited; see also State v. Hetland, 366 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), approved, 387 So.2d 963 (Fla.1980)(rationale criticized at 4 LaFave, supra § 9.4(h) n. 404).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. J.L.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.4(h), at 229-30 & nn. 404-06 (3d ed. 1996), and eases cited; see also State v. Hetland, 366 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), approved, 387 So.2d 963 (Fla.l980)(rationale criticized at 4 LaFave, supra § 9.4(h) n. 404).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert Leslie HETLAND, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
56245.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sep 11, 1980.
387 So. 2d 963
Per Curiam.
Cited by 95 opinions  |  Published

Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Ellen Irene Hoffenberg, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and William I. Munsey, Jr. and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The question in this case is whether a valid stop and frisk may be based on information obtained from an anonymous telephone caller. The District Court of Appeal, Second District, in the decision below, 366 So.2d 831, answered this question in the affirmative provided the anonymous tip bore sufficient indicia of reliability. In reaching its decision the court expressly receded from the rule announced in its prior decision in State v. Hendry, 309 So.2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, however, relied on State v. Hendry in reaching a negative response to this question. St. John v. State, 363 So.2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). But cf. Byrd v. State, 380 So.2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Isham v. State, 369 So.2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Conflict jurisdiction therefore vests in this Court pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (1972).

We agree with the District Court of Appeal, Second District, that an inflexible rule based on the anonymous nature of the tip would not be appropriate in all instances without regard to the other circumstances involved. A valid stop and frisk may be based on information obtained from an anonymous tipster if that information appears sufficiently reliable because of the surrounding circumstances or the nature of the information given in the tip itself.

Since it would serve no useful purpose to expand upon the exhaustive and well reasoned analysis of the district court below, we hereby adopt its opinion as our own. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is granted and the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, is approved. We disapprove of the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in St. John v. State to the extent it is inconsistent with our decision today.

It is so ordered.

SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.