Case Name: Byron CUBBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-01-23
Citations: 707 So. 2d 351
Docket Number: No. 96-04087
Parties: Byron CUBBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: THREADGILL, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 707
Pages: 351–353

Head Matter:
Byron CUBBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 96-04087.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Jan. 23, 1998.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1998.
Robert A. Miller of Rothwell & Barker, PA, St. Petersburg, for Appellant.
Robert A Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Johnny T. Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

Opinion:
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine. Appellant pled nolo to the charges against him after the trial court denied his motion to suppress. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the pat-down search was unlawful in that the arresting officer had no reason to believe he was involved in any criminal activity. We agree and reverse the trial court's denial of the motion.
At approximately 4:30 p.m., St. Petersburg Police Officer Brian Rivera was on patrol in an area known for narcotics activity when he observed appellant and another individual emerge from behind a garage and walk into an alley. Rivera testified that both subjects appeared surprised when they walked past his police cruiser. Rivera asked appellant if he could speak with him, and appellant complied. The second individual kept walking and was not identified. Rivera told appellant that the reason for the stop was that the area was known for frequent narcotics activity. Rivera asked if appellant would allow him to pat him down since weapons had been found in the area. Appellant then patted himself, turned around, and extended his arms. Rivera then told appellant to face him, at which time he conducted a pat-down search which revealed a bottle of Ginseng fluid in appellant's left pants pocket. Rivera testified that he observed a bulge in appellant's right pocket that he thought could have been a weapon. After patting the right pocket, he felt a pebble-like substance which, due to his experience, he believed to be crack cocaine. Appellant was thereafter placed under arrest, and the cocaine was retrieved.
A police officer does not need a founded suspicion of criminal activity to make a brief stop of an individual to determine the person's identity or make inquiries. See State v. Carley, 633 So.2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Hill v. State, 561 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). A frisk, or pat-down, however, will transform a routine, consensual, police-citizen encounter into a "stop," requiring closer scrutiny. See Sholtz v. State, 649 So.2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Hamilton v. State, 612 So.2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
At the suppression hearing, Rivera testified that he did not see appellant commit a crime and had no information that appellant was armed. It is therefore clear that the pat-down was conducted as a routine safety measure. A protective, pat-down search in connection with an investigatory stop is only permitted if the officer has probable cause to believe that the subject is an armed threat. See § 901.151(5), Fla. Stat. (1995); State v. Webb, 398 So.2d 820 (Fla.1981); Premo v. State, 610 So.2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Since it is clear from the record that Rivera had no reasonable suspicion that appellant was involved in any criminal activity nor a reasonable belief that he was armed, the pat-down was invalid. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress and remand. Since appellant's nolo plea reserved the right to appeal the dispositive issue raised by his motion to suppress, on remand, appellant should be discharged.
THREADGILL, J., concurs.
PARKER, C.J., dissents with opinion.