STATE v. J.J.T., Appellee. (2020)

In this delinquency case involving a charge of possession of more than twenty grams of marijuana, the State appeals from orders granting J.J.T.'s motions to suppress evidence of marijuana found in his backpack at school and his subsequent post-Miranda ¹ incriminating statements. The trial court correctly suppressed the evidence of marijuana in J.J.T.'s backpack because the school's vice principal lacked reasonable suspicion to seize the backpack, and we affirm that order. See R.S.M. v. State, 911 So. 2d 283, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (explaining that “the standard for a search and seizure by a school official is one of reasonable suspicion”). Although we disagree with the trial court's conclusion that J.J.T. did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights,² we nonetheless affirm the order suppressing his incriminating statements made to police after the vice principal found the marijuana because they were the fruit of the illegal seizure. See, e.g., J.R. v. State, 149 So. 3d 1196, 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (reversing order denying a motion to suppress where the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and pat down a juvenile and holding that “the trial court should have suppressed the marijuana and incriminating statements resulting from the unlawful search and seizure as ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ ” (quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-88, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963))).

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

2.   See State v. Herrera, 201 So. 3d 192, 197-201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (reversing order suppressing a juvenile confession in a case involving interrogation techniques more aggressive than those employed here).

PER CURIAM.

MORRIS, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.