State v. Webb - 398 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1981)

Rule:

There is no doubt that the legislature intended to adopt the federal standards for stop and frisk, and not any stricter standards. This was made abundantly clear in its title where the legislature says that Fla. Stat. Ann. § 901.151 (1977) is: AN ACT relating to "stop and frisk;" authorizing a law enforcement officer to temporarily detain and question a person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a criminal offense; permits search of the person detained, to the extent necessary, to disclose if said person is armed, when the officer reasonably believes that said person is armed with a dangerous weapon; provides that said person shall not be detained more than is reasonably necessary for such search unless an arrest is made; providing an effective date. Ch. 69-73, Laws of Florida.

Facts:

The police officers were given information from an anonymous informant that described an individual who committed two robberies the day earlier. Approximately six hours after, the officers saw defendant Webb walking down a street approximately two miles from the scene of the robberies. They stopped the defendant because he matched the description. Because they had been advised that the robbery suspect was carrying a gun, one of the officers touched defendant’s shirt at the waist and found a concealed, fully loaded .32 caliber pistol. Defendant was then arrested for carrying a concealed firearm. Later at a lineup, defendant was not identified as the perpetrator of the armed robberies, and no robbery charges were filed against him. He was, however, charged and convicted of the crime of carrying a concealed firearm. The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress the weapon. The intermediate appellate court reversed on the ground that information from an anonymous tip was not sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk a robbery suspect. The prosecutor appealed.

Issue:

Was information from an anonymous tip sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk a robbery suspect?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On further appeal, the Court reversed the decision of the intermediate appellate court because the police officers were justified in their reliance on the anonymous tip as the basis for their articulated reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous. The Court found that Florida's stop and frisk law provided no greater protection from warrantless searches than U.S. Const. amend. IV. Reasonableness of a stop and frisk was determined by balancing the limited violation of an individual's privacy against the opposing interests of crime prevention and officer safety.