Case Name: Carlos R. PORCHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-01-26
Citations: 538 So. 2d 1278
Docket Number: No. 88-1064
Parties: Carlos R. PORCHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ORFINGER, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 538
Pages: 1278–1279

Head Matter:
Carlos R. PORCHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 88-1064.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jan. 26, 1989.
Rehearing Denied March 8, 1989.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Larry B. Henderson, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Pamela D. Cichon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying suppression of evidence. Appellant was northbound on Interstate 95 in his car when he was stopped by a deputy sheriff who was called to do so by another deputy who was in an unmarked vehicle. The deputy in the unmarked vehicle was involved exclusively in drug investigation at the time appellant was stopped. After he was stopped appellant was investigated and interrogated by the drug deputy and a search ensued and drugs were seized. The trial judge found that the stop was not "entirely pretexural" or "primarily prete-xural." The deputy who actually made appellant stop his car did not testify, but it is clear that deputy only stopped the car upon the request of the drug deputy who did testify. It is also clear that this drug deputy was in an unmarked vehicle, was not involved with traffic stops and was solely involved in drug investigation. While appellant was allegedly following other traffic too closely and he was purportedly pulled over for that violation the record discloses the real reason he was detained was to see if he was in possession of drugs. Pretextual stops are violative of the unlawful search and seizure provisions of the state and federal constitutions. Wilhelm v. State, 515 So.2d 1343, 1344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The state failed to show, absent the pretextual basis, that under the circumstances a reasonable officer would have stopped the appellant's vehicle. Kehoe v. State, 521 So.2d 1094 (Fla.1988). This was a pretextual stop and all that flowed from that stop is tainted with the unlawful police conduct. Brooks v. State, 524 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
The order denying suppression is reversed, the conviction is reversed and appellant discharged.
REVERSED.
ORFINGER, J., concurs.
SHARP, C.J., concurs specially with opinion.