← Case library
2nd DCAApril 14, 2023Reversed and remanded for discharge📋 Rule Change

K.M. v. State

Case No. 2D2022-0564

The Second DCA held that officers lacked probable cause to take K.M. into protective custody under the Baker Act based solely on text messages relayed through a third party and an undisclosed photo, without any face-to-face encounter confirming the statutory criteria. The court also held that the subsequent full search of K.M. before transport—conducted pursuant to blanket department policy rather than any reasonable suspicion of danger—violated the Fourth Amendment because officers failed to first perform a pat-down and had no articulable safety concern. The suppression motion should have been granted, requiring reversal and discharge of K.M.'s drug possession conviction.

Key facts

  • K.M. was detained by officers pursuant to the Baker Act based on text messages relayed through a third party and an undisclosed photo, without any face-to-face encounter between the officers and K.M.
  • Before transporting K.M., officers conducted a full search of K.M.'s person pursuant to a blanket departmental policy requiring searches of all individuals before placement in a police vehicle.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This opinion meaningfully extends and applies the Second DCA's recent S.P. v. State framework, clarifying that secondhand, unconfirmed suicide-related communications—absent a face-to-face encounter—cannot alone support… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.