June v. State
Decision Date | 26 November 2012 |
Docket Number | CASE NO. 1D11-5242 |
Parties | JOSEPH BURRELL JUNE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.
Nancy Daniels, Public Defender, and Barbara J. Busharis, Assistant Public
Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief,
Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Joseph Burrell June, Appellant, appeals his conviction and five-year sentence for possession of cocaine, in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2010). Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and motion to dismiss. We affirm the trial court's denial of his motion to dismisswithout further discussion. Appellant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress cocaine found on his person on the ground that it was seized pursuant to an illegal stop and frisk. For the reasons that follow, we also affirm the denial of the motion to suppress.
Officer Von Ansbach Young ("Officer Young") of the Escambia County Sheriff's Office testified that on the day at issue, Appellant was riding his bicycle on Gulf Coast Highway in Escambia County, heading eastbound. Officer Young was driving his patrol car and was also heading eastbound, approaching Appellant from behind him; he pulled his car off to the side of the road behind Appellant. Officer Young did not activate his patrol lights, but he exited the vehicle. Appellant turned around and observed Officer Young, but Officer Young did not order Appellant to stop. Officer Young had never seen Appellant in the area, so he began to converse with Appellant; he had no reason to believe that Appellant was engaged in criminal activity. Officer Young asked Appellant if he had identification, and he gave Officer Young his identification card. Officer Young took the identification card and reported Appellant's information to dispatch to determine if Appellant had any arrest warrants, but returned the card to Appellant as he waited to hear from dispatch.1 When Officer Young first began talking with Appellant, he was "agreeable," but he continued to reach into his pockets whilespeaking to Officer Young. Eventually, Officer Young asked for consent to search, but Appellant refused. When Officer Young asked to search Appellant, he inquired whether Appellant had any contraband on his person, and Appellant stated he did not, but also divulged that he had a pocketknife in his front-right pants pocket. Appellant then began "fidgeting" or exhibiting "nervous energy."
Officer Young continued to speak with Appellant, and Appellant continued reaching into his pockets; at that point, Young asked him to stop doing so, as he was concerned about the pocketknife and other potential weapons. Appellant stated that the request was not a problem, and the conversation continued; however, Appellant reached into his pockets again two or three times. Officer Young then informed Appellant that he would conduct a pat-down for safety reasons, and he conducted the pat-down to secure the pocketknife and search for other possible weapons. First, Officer Young secured the pocketknife found in Appellant's front-right pants pocket. Then, Officer Young patted down the other pockets, but The shirt pocket was part of "a plaid shirt without a top flap." Officer Young "just felt the bottom of that pocket and immediately felt a plastic baggy with a rock-like substance in it." The packaging was consistent with cocaine's packaging, as it was in a plastic baggy, and Officer Young could feel the rock-likepieces at the bottom of the baggy. Officer Young stated that "[d]ue to training and experience, [he] knew immediately that it was [going to] be cocaine." Officer Young field-tested the substance, which produced a positive result for cocaine.
At the close of testimony, the trial court denied Appellant's motion to suppress the cocaine. In doing so, the trial court found that Officer Young had a legal right to conduct a pat-down to search for weapons when Appellant admitted that he had a pocketknife and continued to reach his hand in the pocket where he had a pocketknife, and that the cocaine would be admitted under the plain-feel doctrine because Young testified that, due to his training, he knew immediately what it was upon touching it.
"'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.'" Brye v. State, 927 So. 2d 78, 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (quoting Murray v. State, 692 So. 2d 157, 159 (Fla. 1997)). The State Constitution requires this Court to resolve Fourth Amendment search and seizure issues in conformity with applicable United States Supreme Court precedent. See Art. I, § 12, Fla. Const. (); see also State v. Robinson, 740So. 2d 9, 12 n.2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). "[A] trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is a mixed question of law and fact that ultimately determines constitutional rights and should be reviewed using a two-step approach--deferring to the trial court's findings of fact as long as they are supported by competent, substantial evidence, but reviewing de novo a trial court's application of law to the historical facts." Delhall v. State, 95 So. 3d 134, 150 (Fla. 2012) ( ). Under the exclusionary rule created by the United States Supreme Court, "[e]vidence obtained directly or indirectly from a violation of the [F]ourth [A]mendment is not admissible against an accused at trial." State v. Edward, 25 So. 3d 610, 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citing State v. Griffith, 500 So. 2d 240, 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)).
The Florida Supreme Court has explained that there are three levels of encounters between citizens and law enforcement that determine whether Fourth Amendment protections apply:
Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185, 186 (Fla. 1993) (internal citations omitted).
"[T]he totality of the circumstances controls in cases involving the Fourth Amendment." Brye, 927 So. 2d at 83 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Baez, 894 So. 2d 115, 117 (Fla. 2004)). The Fourth District has noted that Johnson v. State, 785 So. 2d 1224, 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citations omitted). It is constitutionally permissible for law enforcement to conduct a pat-down if an encounter begins as a consensual encounter, even when there is no reasonable belief at the inception of the encounter that criminal activity occurred or was underfoot, if subsequently law enforcement has a reasonable belief that the citizen is armed or potentially dangerous. See id. at 1226, 1229 ( ).
The Second and Fifth Districts have held that an officer's request to remove one's hand from a pocket will not convert a consensual encounter into an investigatory detention when made to ensure an officer's safety. See Lang v. State, 671 So. 2d 292, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) () (citation omitted); Sander v. State, 595 So. 2d 1099, 1100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (). On the other hand, other districts have held that an officer's request to remove one's hand from a pocket will convert a consensual encounter into an investigatory detention. See Johnson v. State, 610 So. 2d 581, 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial