Case Name: Tomas HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1999-11-24
Citations: 784 So. 2d 1124
Docket Number: No. 98-2413
Parties: Tomas HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GREEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 784
Pages: 1124–1135

Head Matter:
Tomas HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 98-2413.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 24, 1999.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Andrew Stanton, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and M. Rebecca Springer, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GREEN, JJ.

Opinion:
COPE, J.
Tomas Hernandez appeals his convictions of burglary, grand theft, and possession of burglary tools. We affirm.
Defendant-appellant Hernandez first contends that the officer who apprehended him had no reasonable suspicion which would warrant the performing of an inves tigatory stop, and that therefore the evidence seized as a result of the stop should have been suppressed. We disagree.
At 3:00 a.m. a police officer received a call from the dispatcher regarding suspicious activity in the parking lot of an apartment complex. The police officer reached the apartment complex one minute later. He observed a white van parked in a regular parking -space, with the front of the van facing the curb. Backed up to the white van was a red van. The rear doors of each van were open.
When the officer drove up, three of the four individuals standing by the vans walked away. The defendant attempted unsuccessfully to close the van doors and started to leave as well. The officer directed the defendant to stop and asked for identification. Upon checking, the officer found the defendant was wanted on an outstanding warrant for driving under the influence, and took him into custody.
Inside or just by the vans, the police found two air-conditioning units which had been stolen from a home under construction. The police also found pry bars and other tools.
The trial court heard evidence on the defendant's motion to suppress, and denied the motion. The court concluded that under the totality of the circumstances, the police officer had a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, and that an investigatory stop was justified. See § 901.151, Fla. Stat. (1997). We entirely agree.
The question is whether the police officer had a reasonable suspicion a crime had been, was being, or was about to be, committed. See § 901.151(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). In making that determination, the court considers the totality of the circumstances. See Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330-31, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990); Jenkins v. State, 685 So.2d 918, 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Thus:
Some of the factors . which may be evaluated by police officers to reason ably suggest a suspect's possible commission, the existence, or imminence, of a crime are:
The time; the day of the week; the location; the physical appearance of the suspect; the behavior of the suspect; the appearance and manner of operation of any vehicle involved; anything incongruous or unusual in the situation as interpreted in the light of the officer's knowledge.
To this list may be added, the factor of flight.
State v. Bell, 382 So.2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (quoting State v. Stevens, 354 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)); see also Jenkins v. State, 685 So.2d 918, 920 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); State v. Russell, 659 So.2d 465, 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Brown v. State, 592 So.2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Thornton v. State, 559 So.2d 438, 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); State v. Pye, 551 So.2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Johnson v. State, 547 So.2d 699, 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); State v. Kibbee, 513 So.2d 256, 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
The officer does not have to actually observe a crime being committed. Reasonable suspicion can exist even though the suspicious activity is consistent with innocent activity. The United States Supreme Court has said:
"[Ijnnocent behavior will frequently provide the basis for a showing of probable cause," and that "[i]n making a determination of probable cause the relevant inquiry is not whether particular conduct is 'innocent' or 'guilty,' but the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular types of noncriminal acts." That principle applies equally well to the reasonable suspicion inquiry.
United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 9-10, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (citation omitted).
Applying those principles here, the officer observed a white van properly parked in the apartment complex parking lot. It was 3:00 a.m. Backed up to the white van was a red van which had not been parked for the night. It was protruding into the driving area. The back doors of both vans were open.
At three o'clock in the morning an officer could reasonably suspect that the white van was being burglarized, with the contents being transferred into the red van. This type of activity and parking arrangement might be unremarkable in the daytime, but they are unusual at 3:00 a.m. These facts added up to a reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.
Defendant's attempt to leave the area when he saw the police officer was not, by itself, enough to create a reasonable suspicion. See Cobb v. State, 511 So.2d 698, 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). However, flight can be considered when there are other suspicious circumstances. Thus:
It is commonly held that flight at the sight of an approaching police officer is a suspicious circumstance which, when added to other suspicious circumstances, may justify the belief that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity and, therefore, an investigatory stop. See, e.g., A.E.R. v. State, 464 So.2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (trespassing complaint plus efforts to elude officers); State v. Bell, 382 So.2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (observation of defendant peering from an alley into first floor window of an apartment plus flight); Isham v. State, 369 So.2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (informant's detailed tip concerning an impending drug sale by the defendant plus flight); Gibson v. State, 368 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (defendant's presence in front of alley in deserted area at early morning hour plus flight).
Cobb, 511 So.2d at 699 (some emphasis added; some emphasis in original); see State v. Pye, 551 So.2d 1237, 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); State v. Hoover, 520 So.2d 696, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Manuel v. State, 526 So.2d 82, 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); State v. Smith, 477 So.2d 658, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In light of the already suspicious circumstances' in this case, the attempt by defendant and his companions to walk away may be considered in deciding whether there was a reasonable suspicion. Drivers of motor vehicles do not normally walk away, leaving the doors open and, as to the red van, the vehicle protruding into the traffic area, as defendant and his companions did in this case.
In arguing for suppression, defendant relies on L.M. v. State, 694 So.2d 118, 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). That case is not on point. In L.M. there had been an anonymous call to the police that a car was being burglarized in a fenced church parking lot. When the police officer arrived, there were several juveniles walking on the sidewalk adjacent to the church, but they were not in the fenced parking lot; the officer did not observe the juveniles doing anything unusual that would give rise to a founded suspicion; and there was not yet a confirmation that an actual car •burglary had taken place. Under those circumstances, the court concluded that there was no founded suspicion. Here, by contrast, the officer directly observed unusual activity at an unusual hour which gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
We respectfully disagree with the position of the dissent. The dissent focuses on the reasons the officer gave for stopping the defendant, which were:
Based on the call we were receiving of suspicious activity, and finding the van back to back. And which as I asked him to approach me, he basically was walking towards the apartment complex attempting to avoid coming towards me.
(TR. 21). The dissent characterizes this testimony as an admission by the officer that "he stopped Hernandez solely upon the anonymous tip and Hernandez's evasive actions." Dissent at 17. But that analysis overlooks the officer's testimony that the reasons for the stop included "finding the van back to back." (TR. 21).
The important point is that the officer's legal conclusion on the issue of probable cause or reasonable suspicion is not binding on the trial court or this court. See State v. Sobrino, 587 So.2d 1347, 1351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). "The existence of probable cause is measured by an objective standard, not based on an officer's underlying intent or subjective motivation." State v. T.P., 588 So.2d 286, 287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (citing Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 98 S.Ct. 1717, 56 L.Ed.2d 168 (1978), and Padron v. State, 449 So.2d 811 (Fla.1984)); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 814, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). "Nor would the legal conclusion of the officer prevent the State from arguing and presenting evidence that probable cause did in fact exist." Routly v. State, 440 So.2d 1257, 1261 (Fla.1983).
The dissent is entirely correct in saying that the contents of the anonymous tip must be disregarded in the circumstances of this case, see note 1 supra, and is also correct in saying that flight — the defendant's effort to avoid the officer- — standing alone, is not enough to give rise to a reasonable suspicion. But, as already stated, the vehicles were parked in an unusual way, at an unusual hour, which would reasonably give rise to a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Given these suspicious circumstances, flight could also be considered. The trial court correctly concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, there was a reasonable suspicion to support an investigatory stop.
As his second issue, defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to convict him of the crime of possession of burglary tools under section 810.06, Florida Statutes (1997). The statute criminalizes "possession [of] any tool, machine, or implement with intent to use the same, or allow the same to be used, to commit any burglary or trespass.... " Id.; see Thomas v. State, 531 So.2d 708, 709-10 (Fla.1988); Hierro v. State, 608 So.2d 912, 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The defendant was in possession of pry bars and other tools at the time of his arrest.
After defendant's arrest, an officer went to the house which had been burglarized. He testified that the sliding glass door had been pried open. This testimony was sufficient to create a jury issue regarding defendant's intent in possessing the tools.
Defendant argues that the officer's testimony must be disregarded. When the prosecutor questioned the officer, he asked whether the officer had gone to 15830 S.W. 7th Street. The officer answered yes, and went on to testify regarding the condition of the burglarized premises. In reality, either the prosecutor misspoke in stating the address, or there is a transcription error, because the actual address of the burglarized location was 15860 S.W. 207 Street. Defendant argues that the officer must have been talking about some other case and some other location, and therefore the officer's testimony must be put aside.
This argument is without merit. It is plain from the entire context what premises are being discussed. In fact, the officer identified the photographs he took of the burglarized premises, which were introduced into evidence without objection. In the motion for judgment of acquittal, defendant never suggested that the testimony of the officer must be disregarded. The motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied, and the officer's testimony was properly considered by the jury.
Affirmed.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., concurs.
. Defendant argues that the contents of the dispatcher's report of suspicious activity in the parking lot should not be considered in deciding whether there was a founded suspicion. Under the circumstances of this case, we agree. See R.A. v. State, 725 So.2d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), review denied, 741 So.2d 1137 (Fla.1999); L.M. v. State, 694 So.2d 118, 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The record does not reveal the identity of the person who called the police, nor did the State adduce evidence from which the identity of the caller could be gleaned. Cf. State v. Gonzalez, 682 So.2d 1168, 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (tape recording of 911 call revealed that the source was a neighbor of the home being burglarized). The analysis in the present case boils down to the question whether the conduct observed by the police at the apartment complex gave rise to a founded suspicion.
. The record suggests alternative bases on which the trial court's ruling might conceivably be sustained, but the parties have not addressed them and we need not reach them. These include (1) whether the stolen air conditioners were properly seized in any event because the witnesses testified they were in plain view; (2) whether all or part of the search was sustainable alternatively because defendant was arrested on the outstanding warrant for driving under the influence; and (3) whether the search was sustainable and/or statements properly admitted in any event because when the officers began questioning the defendant's sister (whose van it was) defendant spontaneously told the officer that he was responsible and that the sister had no part in the thefL.
. Although it makes no difference to the outcome of the present case, we note that the First District disagrees with this court's decision in Hierro v. State. See Calliar v. State, 714 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA), review granted, 727 So.2d 903 (Fla.1998). The First District reads the burglary tool statute, section 810.06, more broadly than this court does. See 714 So.2d at 1135. Under this court's decision in Hierro (and, we believe, the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Thomas) a burglary tool must be possessed with intent to commit a burglary or trespass as the statute says. The First District in Calliar took the position that a burglary tool can also be one which the defendant intends to use to commit a theft inside the burglarized or trespassed-upon premises, even though the tool was not possessed with intent to commit the burglary or trespass. See 714 So.2d at 1135.
We decline to certify conflict because resolution of the conflict would make no difference in the present case. If the evidence is legally sufficient under this court's narrower reading of section 810.06, Florida Statutes, then it necessarily is sufficient under the First District's broader reading of the same statute.