An officer on a routine evening patrol noticed two male juveniles standing next to a moped in an unlighted area of a funeral home parking lot at 9 p.m. According to the officer, there had been a recent rash of burglaries in the neighborhood, but not at the funeral home

Question A: Did the officer have reasonable suspicion to initiate an investigatory stop?

The officer then approached the juveniles and asked them to identify themselves and explain their presence in the unlit area.

Question B: Was this a stop? If so, was it merely investigatory or something more? Could the boys have refused to comply and avoided arrest?

The boys both provided identification, with one stating that he owned the moped they had been riding. The moped had broken down and they were stuck in the lot trying to repair it. The officer patted the boys down for weapons, finding a folding buck knife attached to the moped and a screwdriver in one youth's pocket.

Question C: Were the youths then free to leave? Would they have felt free?

Satisfied that the boys carried no concealed weapons, the officer began to talk to both boys in what he termed a "nonauthoritative fashion." Simultaneously, the officer was writing up a records check for the moped.

Question D: At this point should the officer have read the boys their Miranda rights?

The conversation lasted less than six minutes. The officer then noticed a brown wallet, approximately the size of his palm, attached to one youth's belt. The officer asked the youth what the wallet contained.

Question E: Could the officer have asked the boys if the wallet contained a dangerous weapon? Did the officer have probable cause to inquire as to the wallet's contents? At this point, should the officer have advised the boys of their Miranda rights?

One of the boys responded: "Okay, you got me," and handed the wallet over to the officer.

Question F: Was this response voluntary?

The officer opened the wallet and found five hand-rolled cigarettes, which he suspected contained marijuana. The officer then informed the boys of their Miranda rights.

Question G: Was the search of the wallet consensual and legal? What of the seizure of the wallet's contents? If the boys' attorney moves to suppress the evidence obtained in the stop, how should the court rule?

See J.R.H. v. State, 428 So.2d 786 (Fla.App. 1983).

ANSWERS

(A)
Reasonable Suspicion: Based on objective facts, the officer must suspect that the individuals were involved in criminal activity.  Vague suspicion is not enough.  Under totality of the circumstances, if the defendant is engaged in several acts innocent in and of themselves, but when taken together would create reasonable suspicion, the standard for a brief/Terry stop is met

(B)
A stop occurs only when in view of all the circumstances, a reasonable person would have believe that he was not free to leave.  If the boys would have refused to comply and fled, that almost certainly have given police sufficient reasonable suspicion to briefly detain the boys for inquiries and a Terry frisk.

(C)
The boys would not then be free to leave if the items in the boys' possession gave the officer a probable cause to arrest the boys.  Probable cause is present if it is reasonably likely that a violation of the law has been committed and the person to be arrested committed the violation. 

(D)
The officer only needs to read the boys' their Miranda rights if he intends or already has placed them under arrest and conducted a custodial interrogation.  The boys' are considered to be under arrest and in custody if based on objective facts, a reasonable person would believe he or she is under arrest.  If this questioning is only an inquiry in combination with a brief stop, there is no Miranda requirement.

(E)
The officer could have asked the boys anything about the contents of the wallet during an inquiry in combination with a brief stop based on reasonable suspicion.  The officer's questioning is not restricted to searches for weapons.  Probable cause is generally needed for any search, it must me reasonably likely that the specific items to be searched are connected with criminal activity, and will be found in the place to be searched.  However, the officer is not required to have probable cause to "ask" for consent to ask what was in the wallet.  The boy consented, therefore, no warrant was necessary, therefore no probable cause was necessary.

(F)
Yes probably.  Based on these facts, there was no duress or coercion by the officer under the totality of the circumstances.

(G)
The search of the wallet was probably consensual ( the boy agreed to let the officer look at it and there was no duress or coercion) and legal (so long as an objective person would not believe that he/she was not under arrest).  If the Court believes a reasonable person would have felt that he/she was under arrest and not free to leave and was in custody and this was longer than a brief stop with associated inquiry, then it should suppress the evidence.  Otherwise, the evidence should be allowed as found pursuant to an inquiry during a brief stop based on reasonable suspicion.

Submitted by Uche Egemonye

Emory University School of Law