Florida Drug Trafficking – Can a Traffic Stop be Based on an Informant?

The war on drugs continues in Florida and the United States, and one of the oldest tools in the police toolkit is the use of informants to set up drug deals, find places to search, and support their goals of finding and convicting people using, selling, or delivering drugs of all kinds.

This tool extends as far as acquiring wiretaps for extensive years long operations involving kingpins and gangs, and it can be as simple as providing the reasonable suspicion to make a common traffic stop.

When police rely on a confidential informant (CI) to justify an investigative stop, Florida courts closely examine whether that information was sufficiently reliable to meet constitutional standards. A recent decision involving Jakobie Milton—originally charged with trafficking in amphetamines and fentanyl—illustrates how predictive, corroborated informant tips can satisfy Terry v. Ohio and lead to reinstatement of key evidence.

The First District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s suppression order, holding that law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop based on specific, real-time intelligence provided by a proven confidential informant.

---

Background: Drug Task Force Receives Predictive Tip

On April 18, 2023, the Bay County Sheriff’s Office received a call from a CI known to be reliable and previously used to make numerous drug cases.
The informant identified a man known as “RuRu”—later confirmed as Milton—who would be arriving in Bay County to sell methamphetamine and fentanyl. The CI:

• Gave Milton’s phone number
• Confirmed his identity from a photograph
• Provided details about when and where the drug sale would occur
• Updated officers in real time when the meeting location changed to a Waffle House in Panama City Beach

When deputies arrived, they observed Milton exactly as described, entering a vehicle with a female passenger.

---

The Stop and Arrest

Officers executed a “vehicle pin,” preventing Milton from driving away. Milton rammed two law enforcement vehicles, attempted to flee on foot, and was quickly apprehended. A search of his vehicle uncovered narcotics, leading to trafficking charges.

Milton filed a motion to suppress, arguing that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the Terry stop because the CI’s tip was unreliable. The trial court agreed—but the appellate court did not.

---

Legal Standard: What Counts as Reasonable Suspicion?

A Terry stop requires a well-founded, articulable suspicion that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.
Florida courts apply a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. See:

• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
• Berry v. State, 86 So. 3d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)

Importantly:

• Reasonable suspicion does not require officers to observe criminal activity firsthand.
• The question turns on the “whole picture,” probabilities, and the officer’s training and experience.
• Informant tips can establish reasonable suspicion—even anonymous tips, if they are sufficiently corroborated. See J.L. v. State, 727 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1998).

---

Why the Appellate Court Reversed the Suppression Order

The court emphasized that not all informant information is equal. Here, the CI provided more than “innocent details of identification.” The CI predicted future behavior—a hallmark of reliability under U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Three key reasons supported reasonable suspicion:

Courts view accurate predictions of future events as exceptionally reliable because such information is “not easily predicted by a stranger.” See Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990).

Result:

Because the officers acted on reliable, corroborated, predictive intelligence, the appellate court held that reasonable suspicion existed. The suppression order was reversed, allowing the drug evidence and charges to stand.

---

What This Means for Criminal Defense in Florida

This case highlights several important principles for defense attorneys:

• Trial courts sometimes underestimate the weight of predictive informant information.
• Trial courts sometimes underestimate the weight of predictive informant information. – Appellate courts will overturn suppression orders where officers can show that a CI demonstrated reliability through past cooperation and accurate predictions.
• Reasonable suspicion is a low threshold. – Even without observing a hand-to-hand drug transaction, law enforcement may lawfully conduct a stop if the totality of the circumstances supports suspicion of imminent criminal activity.
• Defense challenges must scrutinize the CI’s history and the exact type of information provided. – Not all “tips” are alike; reliability depends on specificity, corroboration, and predictive content.
• Searches following a lawful Terry stop are often upheld. – Once the stop is valid, evidence discovered during the ensuing encounter—including vehicle searches resulting from flight or resistance—will usually survive a suppression challenge.

---

Conclusion

The Milton case underscores how courts evaluate confidential informant tips when determining whether a stop meets constitutional standards. Predictive, corroborated intelligence—especially from a previously reliable CI—can provide officers with the reasonable suspicion needed to conduct a Terry stop, even before observing criminal activity firsthand.

For anyone charged with trafficking or possession after an informant-driven investigation, it is critical to have a defense attorney who understands Florida’s complex law on informant reliability, stop-and-frisk doctrine, and suppression strategy.

---

---