Brye v. State

• Decision Date: 07 April 2006
• Docket Number: No. 1D05-0624.,1D05-0624.
• Citation: 927 So.2d 78
• Parties: Donald Quinn BRYE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

927 So.2d 78

Donald Quinn BRYE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D05-0624.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 7, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; Archie F. Gardner, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General; Sheron Wells, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

BROWNING, J.

After the trial court denied Donald Quinn Brye's (Appellant) legally dispositive motion to suppress evidence seized during an allegedly unlawful detention and involuntary search, Appellant entered a plea of no contest to the charged offense, possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), while reserving the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. The trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty and sentenced him to 20 months' incarceration. Concluding that the trial court should have granted the motion to suppress because the drug contraband that served as the basis for Appellant's arrest, charges, and conviction was seized during an illegal detention and pursuant to an involuntary search, we reverse the conviction and sentence and remand to the trial court with directions to enter a discharge order. See Fernandez v. State, 917 So.2d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

Florida courts have shown "great deference" to the lower tribunal's ruling on a motion to suppress. See Connor v. State, 803 So.2d 598, 605 (Fla.2001). "A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress comes to us clothed with a presumption of correctness and, as the reviewing court, we must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court's ruling." Murray v. State, 692 So.2d 157, 159 (Fla.1997); Connor, 803 So.2d at 605. By state constitutional mandate in the conformity clause, we are to resolve Fourth-Amendment search and seizure issues in accordance with applicable United States Supreme Court precedents. See Art. I, § 12, Fla. Const.; Holland v. State, 696 So.2d 757, 759 (Fla.1997); State v. Robinson, 740 So.2d 9, 13 n. 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is a mixed question of law and fact. See State v. Christman, 838 So.2d 1189, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The United States Supreme Court has stated that mixed questions of law and fact that ultimately determine constitutional rights are to be reviewed by the appellate courts applying a two-step approach. Deference is to be shown to the trial court on questions of historical fact, but de novo review of the application of a constitutional standard to the facts in a particular case is proper. See United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 336 n. 10, 118 S.Ct. 2028, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998); Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696-98, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996); Connor, 803 So.2d at 605-06.

The testimony offered by the State at the suppression hearing reflected that on August 20, 2004, while on uniformed bike patrol, Deputy Hunnicutt left the other riders. As the deputy cut through a wooded "pig trail" near the railroad tracks in a location known by the police as "a high drug area" where "crack" cocaine is smoked, he saw two males (including Appellant) exiting the woods around 7:45 p.m. or dusk. In what he considered to be "a citizen contact," Deputy Hunnicutt approached the men and asked them both for positive identification. Because both men were extremely nervous, the deputy wondered what was going on. Appellant produced a driver's license or some other form of identification. The deputy noted that the address on the I.D. was nowhere near that particular location. When the deputy asked him what he was doing there, where he was coming from, or why he was coming out of the patch of woods, Appellant responded that he was visiting a friend or something like that. The deputy's deposition indicated that Appellant had said he was coming from his new residence. Deputy Hunnicutt testified that both of the men were "very evasive." The deputy was concerned mainly about why Appellant was in that area, and the deputy did not deem Appellant's given reason for being there very plausible. Deputy Hunnicutt testified that Appellant's answers would have explained his business being in that area if Appellant could have provided an address, but he supplied neither a street address nor a telephone number. During his investigation, the deputy placed Appellant's I.D. on the clip of his policeman's belt, in accordance with his customary practice in dealing with everyone who presents an I.D. His habit is to retain the I.D. until all is said and done, after which he returns the I.D. to its owner. While still holding on to Appellant's I.D. card, Deputy Hunnicutt called in Appellant's I.D. and found no active, outstanding warrants.

The United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Florida have distinguished essentially three levels of police-citizen encounters. In ascending order of police contact, the levels are a consensual encounter, an investigatory stop, and an arrest supported by probable cause that a crime has been, or is being, committed. See, e.g., United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185, 186 (Fla.1993); Robinson, 740 So.2d at 12. The court in Popple described Level One as follows:

The first level is considered a consensual encounter and involves only minimal police contact. During a consensual encounter a citizen may either voluntarily comply with a police officer's requests or choose to ignore them. Because the citizen is free to leave during a consensual encounter, constitutional safeguards are not invoked. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980).

Popple, 626 So.2d at 186. Level Two is the so-called Terry stop:

The second level of police-citizen encounters involves an investigatory stop as enunciated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). At this level, a police officer may reasonably detain a citizen temporarily if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. § 901.151, Fla. Stat. (1991). In order not to violate a citizen's Fourth Amendment rights, an investigatory stop requires a well-founded, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Mere suspicion is not enough to support a stop. Carter v. State, 454 So.2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Popple, 626 So.2d at 186. "[A] person is seized if, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would conclude that he or she is not free to end the encounter and depart." Id. at 188. Before Terry, "any restraint on the person amounting to a seizure for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment was invalid unless justified by probable cause," but Terry "created a limited exception to this general rule" so that certain seizures were justified under the Fourth Amendment where the requisite articulable suspicion existed. Florida. v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 498, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983). A reasonable suspicion of criminal activity will justify "a temporary seizure for the purpose of questioning limited to the purpose of the stop." Id.; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881-82, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). "A `founded suspicion' is a suspicion which has some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer, when those circumstances are interpreted in the light of the officer's knowledge." State v. Stevens, 354 So.2d 1244, 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Although this well-founded suspicion does not have to be fact-based enough to constitute probable cause to arrest, it "must be enough to draw the officer's attention to something more specific than a wide, unparticularized range of potential suspects." Brandin v. State, 669 So.2d 280, 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (quoting Cobb v. State, 642 So.2d 656, 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)).

It is well-established that "an officer does not need to have a founded suspicion to approach an individual to ask questions." Id. at 187. As the United States Supreme Court has explained:

[L]aw enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions.

Royer, 460 U.S. at 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319. Therefore, Deputy Hunnicutt's initial contact with Appellant and the other man was nothing more than a police-citizen encounter involving "only minimal police contact." Popple, 626 So.2d at 186.

During the initial questioning of Appellant, the deputy asked for identification. "A police officer's request to a defendant for his identification does not constitute detention or seizure." State v. Gonzalez, 919 So.2d 702, 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Clemons v. State, 747 So.2d 454, 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). During the investigation of Appellant, Deputy Hunnicutt clipped the I.D. to his police belt. After running an I.D. check and finding no outstanding warrants in Appellant's name, the deputy still held on to Appellant's identification card, without which Appellant effectively was not able to leave the premises. Under the applicable objective standard, a reasonable person would not have felt that he or she was free to leave under these circumstances. In other words, Appellant was "effectively seized for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment." Royer, 460 U.S. at 501-02, 103 S.Ct. 1319. Certainly, once the I.D. check showed no outstanding warrants, Deputy Hunnicutt lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that Appellant had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. Given these circumstances, the deputy...