Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Gene HOPKINS and Bruce English, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-10-20
Citations: 661 So. 2d 937
Docket Number: No. 94-1457
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Gene HOPKINS and Bruce English, Appellees.
Judges: W. SHARP, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 661
Pages: 937–940

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Gene HOPKINS and Bruce English, Appellees.
No. 94-1457.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Oct. 20, 1995.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Belle B. Turner and Mark S. Dunn, Assistant Attorney Generals, Day-tona Beach, for Appellant.
James Dickson Crock of James Dickson Crock, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Appellees.

Opinion:
THOMPSON, Judge.
The state of Florida appeals an order granting a motion to suppress filed by Gene Hopkins and Bruce English. The motion sought to suppress physical evidence seized by sheriffs deputies, as well as statements made by Hopkins and English, at the time of their arrest. On appeal, the state argues that the trial court erred when it determined that there was no founded suspicion for the stop of Hopkins and English and the seizure of marijuana in their possession. We affirm.
Members of the Volusia County Sheriffs Office SWAT team went to the home of Michael Miller to arrest him with a warrant based on information that Miller was involved in the drug trade. The deputies had no other warrants to serve. As the deputies approached Miller's property, Miller saw them and fled in a truck. In addition to wearing t-shirts with the words "Sheriff' on the front and "Sheriffs Drug Unit" on the back, the deputies shouted their identities. Several deputy sheriffs followed Miller. Shortly after Miller left, deputies noticed a dark-colored Camaro leave Miller's yard. The Camaro drove in the opposite direction of Miller and never drove faster than 25 miles per hour.
At that time, the deputies could not identify the occupants of the Camaro, but they knew that Miller was not in the car. The deputies had no reason to follow the Camaro, other than their "gut feeling" that the ear might contain drugs. The deputies suspected that Miller might have given drugs to the occupants of the Camaro for disposal. Deputies followed sixty or seventy feet behind the vehicle until it pulled into a private driveway down the street from Miller's residence. When the car stopped, the deputies stopped behind the car so that it could not leave. Hopkins got out of the passenger's side and was ordered to stop by the deputies, who had gotten out of their car with handguns drawn. One of the deputies shouted, "Halt, sheriffs department." Hopkins hesitated, dropped two green garbage bags, and then went into the backyard of the residence. He returned a few moments later and was secured on the ground. English was arrested at gunpoint as he sat behind the wheel of the Camaro. The two deputies who arrested Hopkins and English testified that they had no information that Hopkins and English had committed or were about to commit a crime.
We agree with the trial court: there was no founded suspicion for the stop of the vehicle. A founded suspicion is one based upon facts and circumstances observed by the officer and interpreted in light of his knowledge and experience. The officer must be able to articulate a basis for his suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Bryant v. State, 577 So.2d 1372, 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Such a suspicion cannot be based upon a mere hunch or guess. Tamer v. State, 484 So.2d 583 (Fla.1986). In this case, the deputies admitted that the only reason they were present at Miller's house was to arrest Miller. They observed no drug transactions that evening and had no knowledge of any crime committed by Hopkins and English. Absent founded suspicion that Hopkins and English had committed, were committing, or were about to commit a crime, the deputies lawfully could not stop the Camaro. Bastién v. State, 522 So.2d 550 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Because the stop was improper, any seizure of drugs or contraband from Hopkins and English also was invalid. Taylor v. State, 658 So.2d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); State v. Paul, 638 So.2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), review denied, 654 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1995). Accordingly, the motion to suppress was properly granted.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP, J., concurs.
COBB, J., dissents with opinion.