C.E.P. v. State, 704 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
C.E.P. v. State, 704 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: C.K. v. State (fladistctapp, 1998-01-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
cited Cited "see" C.K. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See C.E.P. v. State, 704 So.2d 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), and cases cited; Hamilton v. State, 612 So.2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
C.E.P., a juvenile
v.
The STATE of Florida
No. 97-1306.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan 14, 1998.
704 So. 2d 1115
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Amy D. Ronner, Special Assistant Public Defender and Liuba Gonzalez and Dean Pepe, Certified Legal Interns, for appellant., Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Maya Saxena, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Cope, Fletcher, Nesbitt.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

C.E.P. pled no contest to the charge of possession of a controlled substance, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The dispositive question is whether there was a founded suspicion to support an investigatory stop. Although there were ample grounds for an investigatory stop of other juveniles at the location who were consuming alcohol and interfering with traffic, C.E.P. was not observed to participate, or be about to participate, in such activities. As there was no reasonable suspicion to support the investigatory stop, the contraband seized as a result should have been suppressed. See Louis v. State, 589 So.2d 430, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); see also California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991). Based on the record presented, we conclude that the motion to suppress evidence should have been granted. Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and.the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.