Hetland v. State

Hetland v. State, 387 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1980)

Court: Supreme Court of Florida · State Highest Courts
Decided: September 11, 1980
Docket: No. 56245
Judges: Per Curiam
Citations: 387 So. 2d 963

Cited by 92 2 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — Per Curiam

387 So.2d 963 (1980)

Robert Leslie HETLAND, Petitioner,

STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 56245.

Supreme Court of Florida.

September 11, 1980.

Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Ellen Irene Hoffenberg, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for petitioner.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and William I. Munsey, Jr. and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The question in this case is whether a valid stop and frisk may be based on information obtained from an anonymous telephone caller. The District Court of Appeal, Second District, in the decision below, 366 So.2d 831 , answered this question in the affirmative provided the anonymous tip bore sufficient indicia of reliability. In reaching its decision the court expressly receded from the rule announced in its prior decision in State v. Hendry, 309 So.2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, however, relied on State v. Hendry in reaching a negative response to this question. St. John v. State, 363 So.2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). But cf. Byrd v. State, 380 So.2d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Isham v. State, 369 So.2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Conflict jurisdiction therefore vests in this Court pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (1972).

We agree with the District Court of Appeal, Second District, that an inflexible rule based on the anonymous nature of the tip would not be appropriate in all instances without regard to the other circumstances involved. A valid stop and frisk may be based on information obtained from an anonymous tipster if that information appears sufficiently reliable because of the surrounding circumstances or the nature of the information given in the tip itself.

Since it would serve no useful purpose to expand upon the exhaustive and well reasoned analysis of the district court below, we hereby adopt its opinion as our own. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is granted and the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, is approved. We disapprove of the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in St. John v. State to the extent it is inconsistent with our decision today.

It is so ordered.

SUNDBERG, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(section 901.151 is not intended and does not impose a standard different from that under the fourth amendment)

State v. Wise, 603 So. 2d 61 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
(adopting opinion of the district court of appeal)

State v. Jones, 417 So. 2d 788 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Cited by 92 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

State v. Scott641 So. 2d 517 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)
JL v. State727 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1998)
Romanoff v. State391 So. 2d 783 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
State v. Amerson392 So. 2d 311 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
State v. Webb398 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1981)
J.L. v. State727 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1998)

Most recent

Arun Rashid Turay v. Commonwealth of VirginiaNo. 0868213 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2023)
MM v. State80 So. 3d 1125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
M.M. v. State80 So. 3d 1125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)
DP v. State65 So. 3d 123 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)
D.P. v. State65 So. 3d 123 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)
Milbin v. State792 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

Depth	Case	Cited by
	State v. Hetland, 366 So. 2d 831 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)	91
	John v. State, 363 So. 2d 862 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)	25
	Byrd v. State, 380 So. 2d 457 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)	16
	Isham v. State, 369 So. 2d 103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)	15
	State v. Hendry, 309 So. 2d 61 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)	9

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list