Opinion

J.L. v. State

  • 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 626
  • 727 So. 2d 204
  • 1998 Fla. LEXIS 2422
Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Filed
Dec 17, 1998
Status
Published
Author
Wells
On the bench
Anstead, Harding, Kogan, Overton, Shaw, Wells
Cited by
57 cases

finding that the anonymous tip stating that several young black males were standing at a specified bus stop, and that one was wearing a plaid shirt and carrying a gun, was insufficient to justify a Terry stop, absent indication that police independently observed suspicious or illegal conduct

How later courts described this case

  • finding that the anonymous tip stating that several young black males were standing at a specified bus stop, and that one was wearing a plaid shirt and carrying a gun, was insufficient to justify a Terry stop, absent indication that police independently observed suspicious or illegal conduct
  • stating that reliability of anonymous tip can be established by police officer’s observations of suspicious activity corroborating tip
  • analyzing the case as falling within the class of tips that allege criminal conduct but only describe innocent details of identification
  • "One of the officers immediately accosted J.L., who was wearing a plaid shirt, and ordered him to place his hands above his head."

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

WELLS, J.,

dissenting.

I join in the thorough and well-reasoned dissent of Justice Overton.

I write separately only to point out, contrary to the assertion of the concurring opinion, that my decision is not based upon a confusion between the right to bear arms and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Rather, I conclude that to guard the constitutionally protected right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, this Court is not required to ignore the reality of what is happening daily in our country, our state, and in every local community of Florida.

*216 The protection under scrutiny is against what is unreasonable. What is unreasonable has to be measured against what are the contemporary facts of life. I fault the majority because, in my judgment, it chooses to eliminate the word “unreasonable” from the Fourth Amendment. The majority’s decision unnecessarily exposes many innocent residents of this state to severe harm from the violence of guns and without justification hinders law enforcement officers in their work to protect innocent residents. This simply does not have to be done to guard the Fourth Amendment.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.