Thames v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Per curiam
There was no founded suspicion, much less probable cause of wrongdoing to justify the search and seizure involved in this case. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185 (Fla.1993); J.L.H. v. State, 990 So.2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Alvarez v. City of Hialeah, 900 So.2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); State v. Taylor, 826 So.2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Because the order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress was therefore erroneous, the conviction is reversed and the cause remanded with direction to discharge the defendant.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Popple v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1993
- State v. TaylorDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2002
- Alvarez v. City of HialeahDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2005
- J.L.H. v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2008
3Cited by2 opinions
- Spectrum Interiors, Inc. v. Exterior Walls, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2011
- Thames v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2009