DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellant,

v.

ARNOLD STEVEN LAMAR,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D17-3916

and 4D18-48

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellant,

v.

WILLIE J. ANDERSON,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D18-32,

4D18-47 and 4D18-336

[October 20, 2018]

Consolidated appeals of non-final orders from the Circuit Court for the 

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Charles E. Burton, Judge; 

L.T. Case Nos. 50-2016-CF-012788AWB, 50-2016-CF-012779AWB, 50-

2016-CF-012788BWB, 50-2016-CF-012779BWB and 50-2017-CF002180AWB.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee, Arnold Steven Lamar.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant 

Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 

Fourth District, West Palm Beach, for appellee, Willie J. Anderson.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM.

It is sua sponte ordered that consolidated case numbers 4D17-3916 

and 4D18-48 shall be consolidated with consolidated case numbers 4D18-

32, 4D18-47 and 4D18-336 for all purposes and are affirmed.

GROSS and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

FORST, J., dissents with opinion.

FORST, J., dissenting.

A Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Deputy on patrol in the City of Belle 

Glade encountered the two defendants at 3:00 a.m. The defendants were 

carrying a white plastic bag. The defendants were detained and ultimately 

arrested after law enforcement determined that the bag contained stolen 

items. The defendants were charged with burglary and theft. They filed 

motions to suppress. The trial court granted the motions, finding that, 

“[w]hile the initial contact may have been consensual, once the officer 

started questioning the Defendants about the bag and contents and 

requested to look inside the bag this became an investigatory stop which 

required reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is 

committing, or is about to commit a crime.” 

The trial court’s finding that the officer “requested to look inside the 

bag” is contrary to the uncontradicted testimony of the officer that “I asked 

[the defendants], I just basically said like, hey, where did you guys—you 

know, where did you get this bag, or what's inside. And one of the males 

opened up the bag and showed me what was inside.” This is not “a request 

to look inside the bag.” Up to the point that the officer semi-detained1 the 

defendants for forty-five minutes, this was a consensual encounter. Once 

the officer viewed the contents of the bag (new watches wrapped in plastic, 

a woman’s purse, mail addressed to individuals other than the 

defendants), and in light of the totality of the circumstances (including 

time and place of the encounter and the fact a hurricane watch was in 

effect), he had the requisite reasonable suspicion that the defendants had 

committed a crime. See State v. Bullock, 164 So. 3d 701, 704-05 (Fla. 5th 

DCA 2015) (“Reasonable suspicion can develop as a result of direct 

observations by law enforcement . . . .”). Accordingly, I would reverse the 

1 The defendants were never told that they were not free to leave, and they indeed 

did leave, although law enforcement retained the bag’s contents and later 

arrested the defendants after it was determined that several nearby locations had 

been burglarized.
- 3 -

trial court orders granting the motions to suppress and, thus, I 

respectfully dissent from the panel’s affirmance of the trial court orders. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.