# J.L. v. State

> Supreme Court of Florida · December 17, 1998 · 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 626

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7720309

## Case

- **Full name:** J.L., a juvenile v. STATE of Florida
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** December 17, 1998
- **Citations:** 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 626; 727 So. 2d 204; 1998 Fla. LEXIS 2422
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wells
- **Judges:** Anstead, Harding, Kogan, Overton, Shaw, Wells
- **Cited by:** 57 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7720309

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 …
- stating that reliability of anonymous tip can be established by police officer’s observations of suspicious activity corroborating tip

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7720309. Public record. Not legal advice.