M.S., a child, Appellant, v. STATE (2022)

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

M.S., a juvenile, appeals from a final order adjudicating him delinquent following the entry of his negotiated no contest plea to three vehicular burglaries and two firearms offenses. On appeal, he raises only the legally dispositive issue of the denial of his motion to suppress. We accept the State's confession of error and reverse.

M.S. and his juvenile companion were riding their bicycles with no lights at approximately 3:40 a.m. in Fort Lauderdale. A police officer stopped the juveniles to issue them non-criminal infraction warnings for having no lights on their bicycles. The officer patted them both down without their consent.

During the pat-down search of M.S., the officer discovered a firearm. This discovery allowed the officer to obtain incriminating statements from M.S.’s juvenile companion, as well as other evidence, all of which M.S. sought to suppress following his arrest.

The State confesses error because nothing in M.S.’s encounter with the officer prior to the pat-down gave rise to a reasonable articulable suspicion to justify the search. See T.M. v. State, 37 So. 3d 384, 384-85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“Under these circumstances, [the officer] did not have the requisite suspicion needed to justify the pat-down.”).

Accordingly, we accept the State's confession that the trial court erred in denying M.S.’s motion to suppress the unwarranted pat-down that allowed the prosecution to obtain the evidence establishing M.S.’s commission of the offenses forming the basis for the delinquency petition. On remand, the trial court is directed to vacate M.S.’s delinquency adjudication and discharge him from the disposition entered for these charges.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Per Curiam.

Klingensmith, Kuntz and Artau, JJ., concur.