June v. State
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20232, 131 So. 3d 2, 2012 WL 5897616 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A consensual police encounter can escalate to a lawful investigatory stop justifying a protective pat-down if an officer develops a reasonable belief, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the individual is armed and potentially dangerous. Contraband discovered during such a pat-down is admissible under the plain-feel doctrine if its incriminating character is immediately apparent to the officer.
Facts:
- Officer Von Ansbach Young stopped his patrol car behind Joseph Burrell June, who was riding a bicycle, and initiated a conversation without activating his patrol lights or ordering June to stop.
- During the consensual conversation, Officer Young asked for June's identification, which he ran for warrants and then returned to June.
- June repeatedly reached into his pants pockets while speaking with the officer.
- When asked if he had any contraband, June denied having any but voluntarily disclosed that he had a pocketknife in his front-right pants pocket.
- After admitting to possessing the knife, June began exhibiting nervous energy, or "fidgeting," and continued to reach for his pockets despite the officer's request to stop.
- Concerned for his safety due to the knife and June's actions, Officer Young informed June he was going to conduct a pat-down.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Burrell June was charged with possession of cocaine in a Florida trial court.
- June filed a motion to suppress the cocaine evidence, arguing it was obtained through an illegal stop and frisk.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- Following his conviction and sentencing, June, as the Appellant, appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pat-down for officer safety and the subsequent seizure of contraband violate the Fourth Amendment when the encounter began consensually, but the individual then admitted to possessing a weapon, exhibited nervous behavior, and repeatedly reached for the pocket containing the weapon?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, J.
No, the pat-down and seizure do not violate the Fourth Amendment. A consensual encounter may justify a protective pat-down if an officer develops a reasonable belief that the citizen is armed and dangerous. Here, the encounter, which began consensually, transformed when June admitted to carrying a pocketknife and then continuously and nervously reached for it. The totality of these circumstances—June's admission of possessing a weapon, his nervous demeanor, and his repeated reaching for the pocket—gave Officer Young a reasonable belief that June was armed and potentially dangerous, thereby justifying the pat-down for officer safety. Furthermore, the seizure of the cocaine was permissible under the 'plain-feel' doctrine established in Minnesota v. Dickerson, as Officer Young immediately recognized the rock-like substance in a plastic baggie as cocaine based on his training and experience without any invasive manipulation.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the principle that a police-citizen encounter is fluid and can escalate from consensual to an investigatory stop based on the citizen's own actions and statements. It clarifies that an individual's admission to carrying a weapon, even a common one like a pocketknife, combined with nervous behavior, can supply the necessary reasonable belief for a lawful Terry frisk. The case also provides a straightforward application of the plain-feel doctrine, distinguishing lawful discovery from impermissible manipulation of an object during a pat-down, thus reinforcing the doctrine's limits.
Unlock the full brief for June v. State