14 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Danielgreen2 sentences2016In Daniel , the Court narrowed its holding in Kehoe , stating that “the reasonable officer test applies exclusively where a stop is justified solely by a minor infraction, generally those that are purely regulatory in nature and that do not address conduct potentially harmful to other persons or property.” Daniel, 665 So.2d at 1043 . 2016In Daniel, the Court narrowed its holding in Kehoe, stating that “the reasonable officer test applies exclusively where a stop is justified solely by a minor infraction, generally those that are purely regulatory in nature and that do not address conduct potentially harmful to other persons or property.” Daniel, 665 So. 2d at 1043 . | 3 | 10 |
Holland v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., Holland v. State, 696 So. 2d 757, 759 (Fla. 1997) (“The Whren Court rejected the reasonable officer test in favor of a strict objective test which asks only whether any probable cause for the stop existed.”); State v. Nelson, 183 So. 3d 1074, 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“[A] seizure is permissible if the deputy has probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred.”); State v. Parker, 311 So. 3d 1029 , 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (“[A] traffic stop is considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ‘where the police have probable cause to belie 2008In Holland v. State, 696 So.2d 757 (Fla.1997), the Florida Supreme Court receded from its earlier decision in State v. Daniel, 665 So.2d 1040 (Fla.1995), in light of Whren , finding that the United States Supreme Court had "rejected the reasonable officer test in favor of a strict objective test which asks only whether any probable cause for the stop existed." Holland, 696 So.2d at 759 . | 3 | 5 |
State v. Nelsongreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., Holland v. State, 696 So. 2d 757, 759 (Fla. 1997) (“The Whren Court rejected the reasonable officer test in favor of a strict objective test which asks only whether any probable cause for the stop existed.”); State v. Nelson, 183 So. 3d 1074, 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“[A] seizure is permissible if the deputy has probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred.”); State v. Parker, 311 So. 3d 1029 , 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (“[A] traffic stop is considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ‘where the police have probable cause to belie | 1 | 1 |
Bernie v. Stategreen1 sentence1997Like the United States Constitution, the Florida Constitution, in article I, section 12, guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." As amended in 1982 section 12 also provides that "[t]his right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court." (Emphasis added.) When we previously examined the limits of this amendment to section 12, we found that the conformity clause "brings this state's search and seizur | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Timothy Andrew Smith, Stephen Lawrence Swindellgreen2 sentences1995Ironically, this quotation has been cited by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals as the authority mandating the reasonable officer test, United States v. Valdez, 931 F.2d 1448, 1450 (11th Cir.1991); United States v. Smith, 799 F.2d 704, 708-09 (11th Cir.1986), even as other courts have cited it in support of the competing objective test. 1995For example, the reasonable officer test apparently originated in the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Smith, 799 F.2d at 708 , a case that arose out of Florida. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jesus I. Valdezgreen1 sentence1995Ironically, this quotation has been cited by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals as the authority mandating the reasonable officer test, United States v. Valdez, 931 F.2d 1448, 1450 (11th Cir.1991); United States v. Smith, 799 F.2d 704, 708-09 (11th Cir.1986), even as other courts have cited it in support of the competing objective test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whren v. United States
green
2 sentences2025See, e.g., Holland v. State, 696 So. 2d 757, 759 (Fla. 1997) (“The Whren Court rejected the reasonable officer test in favor of a strict objective test which asks only whether any probable cause for the stop existed.”); State v. Nelson, 183 So. 3d 1074, 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“[A] seizure is permissible if the deputy has probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred.”); State v. Parker, 311 So. 3d 1029 , 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) (“[A] traffic stop is considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution ‘where the police have probable cause to belie 1998In determining the validity of a traffic stop, the United States Supreme Court in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996), held that an objective test is to be applied, thereby overruling the reasonable officer test of State v. Daniel, 665 So.2d 1040 (Fla.1995). | 4 | 1996–2025 |
Kehoe v. State
red
2 sentences2007After noting that the totality of the circumstances provided a founded suspicion which justified the stop in and of itself, the Court addressed the issue relating to pretextual stops, setting forth the reasonable officer test: in order to show the stop was proper, "[t]he state must show that under the facts and circumstances a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle absent an additional invalid purpose." Id. at 1097 . 1997In Whren , the Supreme Court rejected the reasonable officer test approved by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Daniel, 665 So.2d 1040 (Fla.1995), reh. denied, and Kehoe v. State, 521 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 1988). | 2 | 1997–2007 |
Monroe v. State
green
2 sentences1996Also of assistance to an analysis of the application of the reasonable officer test to the instant case is the Daniel court's express recognition of Monroe v. State, 543 So.2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) and Hills v. State, 629 So.2d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) as in accord with Daniel 's reasonable officer test. 1995In rejecting the stop under the reasonable officer test, the Monroe court noted that the State had failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that "a reasonable officer on drug patrol would have made a traffic stop for a bald tire, absent another invalid purpose, under the facts and circumstances present here." Id. at 299 . | 2 | 1995–1996 |
United States v. MacUllon Freeman, Also Known as Ted Lewis Brown, United States of America v. Kenneth Anthony Chan
green
1 sentence2008The burden of proof remains on the government. 482 F.3d at 832 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Doctor v. State
green
1 sentence2007This test was the underpinning in the Court's opinion in Doctor v. State, 596 So.2d 442 (Fla.1992). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Petrel v. State
green
1 sentence1996Petrel v. State, 675 So.2d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see Art. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Hills v. State
green
1 sentence1996Also of assistance to an analysis of the application of the reasonable officer test to the instant case is the Daniel court's express recognition of Monroe v. State, 543 So.2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) and Hills v. State, 629 So.2d 152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) as in accord with Daniel 's reasonable officer test. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.