Case Name: Clifford HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1979-01-31
Citations: 366 So. 2d 865
Docket Number: No. 77-2150
Parties: Clifford HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: LETTS, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 366
Pages: 865–867

Head Matter:
Clifford HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 77-2150.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan. 31, 1979.
Rehearing Denied March 14, 1979.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Tatjana Ostapoff and Wilbert Stevenson, Jr., Asst. Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Charles A. Stampelos and Mary E. Marsden, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
BERANEK, Judge.
In this case the defendant contends the trial court erroneously denied a motion to suppress tangible evidence found in an automobile. Police officers received a call from a retail store manager to the effect that two black males were in a retail clothing establishment acting in a "suspicious manner." Two separate police officers responded to this call and arrived simultaneously. At this point the two suspects were leaving the store. The store manager came out and briefly conversed with the officers. The manager told the officers the two black males had visited the store on several occasions that day, that they had not appeared interested in buying anything and that their conduct was suspicious.
On the basis of this information one of the police officers followed the two suspects who had entered a car and driven away. The suspects did nothing out of the ordinary in the presence of the police officer. There were no suspicious circumstances or actions. The officer followed the car and eventually turned on his blinking light and siren. In response to this appellant peered back nervously at the officer and reached toward the floor of the vehicle. Other than this, the stop was effected without incident. After approaching the car, the officer, using a light, peered into the back seat and discovered certain stolen merchandise. We need not reach the issue of whether this constituted a search in view of our ruling as to the initial stop of the suspects.
It is our conclusion that the detention of these suspects was not authorized by the Stop and Frisk Law, § 901.151 Fla.Stat., or by the Retail Theft Detention and Arrest Law, § 901.34 Fla.Stat. The officers here did not have probable cause for believing that goods held for sale in a retail establishment had been unlawfully taken as is required by § 901.34. Further, the officers were not presented with circumstances reasonably indicating that the two suspects had or were about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this State as required by § 901.151. Under these circumstances the officers had only a bare suspicion which did not authorize detention of the appellant. Coleman v. State, 333 So.2d 503 (Fla.4th DCA 1976).
The officers had the right to act upon the report of the store manager but here this report was simply insufficient to create the necessary "founded suspicion" based on any objective standard. Coladonato v. State, 348 So.2d 326 (Fla.1977). There was no report of or evidence of stolen goods. The trial court erred in denying the motion. Judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LETTS, J., concurs.
KAPNER, LEWIS, Associate Judge, dissents with opinion.