Description:

Clearwater, Florida juvenile delinquent criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant.
The State filed a delinquency petition against L.C., alleging an
attempted burglary. See §§ 777.04(4)(d), 810.02(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2021).
L.C. moved to suppress all evidence obtained by law enforcement officers
from an alleged unlawful stop and a subsequent suggestive show-up
identification by a citizen informant who called law enforcement to report
suspicious activity. L.C. asserted that a "be-on-the-lookout" report
(BOLO) was too vague to justify a stop. He also challenged the show-up
identification procedure because law enforcement officers took the citizen
informant to view four suspects and she offered a different description of
the suspects than she had in her call to dispatch.
Officer Charlie Flowers appeared at the suppression hearing. He
testified that on July 15, 2021, at about 7:30 a.m., he received a
dispatch originating from a named informant. The informant reported
that four black males with shorts, some without shirts, were breaking
into a vehicle. Officer Flowers admitted that the call notes stated that all
the males were shirtless. The informant saw the males running
northbound from the scene of the apparent burglary.
Officer Flowers and another law enforcement officer reported to the
scene. About six or seven minutes after receiving the dispatch, Officer
Flowers saw four black males running eastbound. He testified that they
were in the area where he expected them to be based on his familiarity
with the area and where and when the crime was reportedly committed.
The four matched the informant's description. Officer Flowers detained
them.

Officer Flowers identified the persons in photographs, State's
Exhibits 1(A) through (D), as the suspects. The photographs show that
they were males wearing shorts. L.C. was wearing a black shirt; another
was wearing a purple shirt. The other two were shirtless.
Officer Flowers testified that although two males wore shirts, he
detained all of them. Based on his training and experience, he testified
that informants do not always describe a suspect with certainty.

Suspects sometimes change clothes, may not be wearing certain clothes
at the time, or may "pick up a clothing item, [and] use that clothing item
as a glove or some type of evidence." Officer Flowers believed that L.C.
and the three others "match[ed] four young black juvenile males in the
area of the crime."

Officer Flowers agreed that L.C. was "a little bit lighter" skinned
than the others; he described L.C. as "a light-skinned black male." He
conceded that he initially reported to dispatch that he observed "four to
three black males; one white male, black shirt; one white male, purple
shirt." In his supplemental report, Officer Flowers described the
suspects as "four black juvenile males" but listed L.C. as a "white male."
Asked about the apparent inconsistency in describing L.C., Officer
Flowers testified that mixed race individuals sometimes identify as white
and sometimes as black. Officer Flowers explained that there was no
option for mixed race in the police department's reporting system. When
a person is mixed race, policy requires the officer to enter the person as
white. Officer Flowers testified that "[L.C.'s] definitely light skinned and I
wouldn't say [L.C.'s] a hundred percent Caucasian."

Officer Jason Russell testified that he responded to the informant's
residence, obtained a brief description of what she saw, and then drove
her to view the suspects. Officer Russell testified that the suspects were
standing in a parking lot and not handcuffed. Officer Russell testified
that the informant remained in the patrol vehicle. He asked "if there was
anybody there that she recognized; she identified [L.C.]" Officer Russell
then asked the informant what she saw L.C. doing. The informant stated
that L.C. "was the one that walked up to the vehicle, the car door and
pulled on it." Officer Russell asked the informant if she was certain that
L.C. was the person she saw. She replied, "100 percent."

Defense counsel argued that the officers lacked a basis to detain
L.C. because L.C. did not match the description in the BOLO. Defense
counsel argued that "Officer Flowers testified multiple different ways as
to what [L.C.'s] description was, but under no circumstances did he ever
say that he had no shirt." Defense counsel also argued that the show-up
identification was "impermissibly suggestive." He added, "[E]ven if the
[trial c]ourt finds that the BOLO is sufficient, this subsequent show[-]up
procedure is not. It just doesn't pass constitutional muster."
The State countered that L.C. met the BOLO description; Officer
Flowers believed L.C. was mixed race, and "it would be very easy for
somebody to put a shirt on" during the six minutes before Officer Flowers
encountered L.C. The State also observed that the informant was a
citizen informant and that the show-up "was all done by the book, and
[L.C.] was positively identified immediately by the witness."
The trial court took the motion under advisement. It later rendered
an unelaborated written order granting L.C.'s motion.

* * *

Outcome: Law enforcement officers had a reasonable suspicion to stop L.C.
Nothing in the record established that the law enforcement officers used
an unnecessarily suggestive procedure to obtain his out-of-court
identification. We reverse the trial court's order granting L.C.'s motion to
suppress and remand this matter for further action consistent with this
opinion.
Reversed and remanded

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: