Call us now:
Most of the time, American’s universally agree it is desirable to look young. Huge industries are dedicated to cosmetics, surgery, lifestyle, and fashion, all which have the billion dollar goal of making Americans feel and look young, youthful, and generally better (by looking younger of course). But in one very specific area of law in Florida, looking too young (whatever that means) can be the difference between lawful vs unlawful police conduct, and a resulting conviction and criminal record.
In the recent case of Nehemiah Devince Brock v. State of Florida, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress a firearm seized during a stop based in part on the defendant’s youthful appearance. The ruling brings to light complex tensions between lawful police conduct, the limits of investigatory stops under the Fourth Amendment, and the collateral effects of Florida’s age-based firearm statutes.
While the court ultimately affirmed the stop as constitutional under the totality of the circumstances, it raised a significant concern for all citizens—especially young adults legally exercising their Second Amendment rights—about the risk of being detained or searched simply because they “look young.”
Case Summary: Brock v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
On July 4, 2023, Nehemiah Devince Brock was standing beside a parked car in a known high-crime area of Miami-Dade County, wearing a hoodie and clutching its front pocket. Two officers patrolling the area believed he looked “young” and appeared nervous. Given the context—Fourth of July, high-crime area, wearing a hoodie in summer, hand near waistband—they approached and conducted a pat-down, discovering a concealed firearm.
Brock was 19 years old at the time, and Florida law prohibits anyone under 21 from lawfully carrying a concealed weapon unless they are military personnel or otherwise exempt. See § 790.01(1), Fla. Stat.; § 790.06(2)(b), Fla. Stat.
Brock moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. The trial court denied the motion after finding the officers’ testimony credible, and Brock ultimately pled to the lesser offense of openly carrying a weapon, § 790.053, Fla. Stat. The Third DCA affirmed the ruling.
Legal Framework: Reasonable Suspicion and Investigatory Stops
Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement may briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that criminal activity is afoot. Florida courts apply this same standard, examining the “totality of the circumstances.” See State v. Quinn, 41 So. 3d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
Relevant factors include:
- Time and location of the incident;
- Behavior and appearance of the suspect;
- Knowledge and experience of the officers;
- Any unusual or incongruous activity.
See Hernandez v. State, 784 So. 2d 1124, 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
In Brock, the court noted the combination of factors supporting the officer’s suspicion: the high-crime area, Brock’s unusual attire for the weather, his visible nervousness, and his posture suggesting concealment of a weapon.
Deference to the Trial Court’s Findings
The appellate court emphasized the high level of deference it must give to the trial court’s factual findings, particularly where witness credibility is concerned. See Valle v. State, 70 So. 3d 530, 541 (Fla. 2011); Ladson v. State, 63 So. 3d 807, 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). Because the trial judge found the officers’ testimony credible, and bodycam footage supported their observations, the court affirmed the suppression ruling.
Constitutional Concern: Age-Based Gun Restrictions and Racial Profiling Risks
So up until this point the case is pretty straightforward. Man detained and arrested, he claims a 4th amendment violation. Court believes officers, then appellate Court finds the lower Court made the right decision. However this case starts getting a little more interesting when the judges involved take the opportunity to examine what they clearly believe is a troubling issue with the statute prohibiting firearm possession under 21.
Although the court did not rule on the constitutionality of Florida’s concealed carry law for those under 21, it included a striking cautionary note:
“As it stands, section 790.01 prohibits anyone under the age of twenty-one from carrying a concealed firearm. A foreseeable consequence is that many law-abiding, young adult citizens who are exercising their Second Amendment rights can be confused for individuals who do not meet the age requirement. […] In practice, this will likely create a repeated situation where law-abiding, young adult citizens are being stopped improperly. Indeed, a twenty-two-year-old may very well look twenty.” (Brock, slip op. at 5–6)
This passage highlights the inherent subjectivity and potential for arbitrary enforcement when police rely on perceived age as a basis for stops. It raises red flags for civil liberties advocates, particularly given how “youthful appearance” may be intertwined with race, clothing, and neighborhood bias.
Implications for Citizens and Criminal Defense
This case illustrates how Florida’s current concealed carry regime—post-permitless carry under HB 543 (2023)—intersects with Fourth Amendment rights. While adults over 21 may carry without a permit, law enforcement may still initiate encounters if they believe the individual appears younger and is carrying unlawfully. This is deeply problematic.
There is no clear way for citizens to “look legal.” As the court acknowledged, this can lead to repeated unconstitutional stops of lawful gun owners who are simply young in appearance. It also leaves a dangerous opening for profiling under the guise of age-based suspicion.
Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale for Young Gun Owners
While the court in Brock v. State affirmed the denial of suppression based on existing legal standards, the case underscores the urgent need for legislative and judicial clarity. It is inappropriate—and potentially unconstitutional—to subject citizens to investigative stops based merely on an officer’s subjective belief about their age.
Until Florida revisits these age restrictions or courts are presented with a direct constitutional challenge, young adults lawfully carrying firearms will remain vulnerable to police scrutiny not because of what they did, but because of how they look. To be clear, the state of Florida is a very strong gun rights state. Floridians from north Florida and the panhandle all the way to the Keys generally support the right to possess firearms. At the same time, Floridians support the right to privacy and the protections of the 4th amendment protecting them from the state and federal government.
These two rights are directly in conflict in a case such as this, where deference to the police will have the effect of eroding the right to possess a firearm by subjecting the citizen who is lawfully carrying a firearm but looks young to warrantless detention. Until the legislature can restrict the police from these kinds of warrantless detentions, or the Court’s can be more skeptical of these kinds of stops, young looking Floridians will have to tolerate more government intrusion on their privacy.
Citations:
- Brock v. State, __ So. 3d __ (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
- § 790.01(1), Fla. Stat. (2023)
- § 790.06(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2023)
- § 790.053, Fla. Stat. (2023)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
- State v. Quinn, 41 So. 3d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Hernandez v. State, 784 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Valle v. State, 70 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2011)
- Ladson v. State, 63 So. 3d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- State v. Turner, 224 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1969)
Why Retaining an Attorney Matters
Criminal Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman at Landsman Law helps people accused of crimes in Gainesville, Alachua County, Bradford County, Levy County, Gilchrist County, and surrounding areas of north Florida. If you need help for yourself or a loved one, contact Criminal Defense Attorney Matt Landsman for a free consultation today. For help with any Criminal Matter from Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer Matt Landsman – CALL NOW
If you’re accused of any criminal matter, retaining an attorney is critical to protecting your rights. These cases will involve constitutional questions and concern allegations of misconduct or are sensitive in nature, requiring a skill, preparation and experience. For expert legal help, contact Gainesville Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman to protect your rights today.