Cooks v. State (First District Court of Appeals- 2010 WL 532506/ February 5th 2010)

On March 18, 2007, at a little after 4:00 a.m., an Escambia County Sheriff's Deputy was dispatched to investigate a report of suspicious activity called in by a hotel clerk identified in the record only as “Glenda.” En route to the hotel, the deputy saw a car matching the description in the CAD report. The deputy turned behind it and stopped the car. Appellant was driving and there was one other person in the car.

The deputy told the Mr. Cooks and the passenger, Jerry Gillard, that there was “suspicious activity at a hotel close by” and “they stated that they had been coming from that hotel.” The deputy asked Mr. Cooks to come to the back of the car, which he did. While Mr. Cooks remained behind, the deputy went to speak with Gillard. The deputy then noticed “a small baggie of green leafy substance pushed down next to [Gillard's] leg.” The deputy asked Gillard to get out of the car and arrested him. The deputy then searched Appellant and found crack cocaine in his jacket, at which point he was arrested.

The Court held: the instant case involves a citizen's claim of suspicious activity that has a minimal objective basis and, except for innocent details of identification, is uncorroborated by law enforcement's subsequent observations. Corroboration of nothing more than innocent details of identification (e.g., a license plate number) assists the state in making the required showing that the information was sufficiently detailed to single out the suspect. It does not, however, create or support a suspicion that crime is afoot, which is essential if a report of generalized, allegedly suspicious activity is to justify a stop. The absence of this suspicion is fatal to the state's position.

The Court suppressed the evidence and the case was thrown out.