Morris v. State, 5D99-104.
| Decision Date | 28 January 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D99-104.,5D99-104. |
| Citation | 749 So.2d 590 |
| Parties | Robert T. MORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joerg F. Jaeger of Jaeger & Blankner, Orlando, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Patrick W. Krechowski, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Robert T. Morris appeals the order withholding adjudication of guilt of possession of a controlled substance, MDMA.1 Morris contends that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress. After the court denied the motion, Morris entered a plea of nolo contendere reserving his right to appeal the suppression issue, and the state stipulated that the issue was dispositive. We affirm.
Deputy Craig Campbell testified that on 15 June 1998, at about 1:30 a.m., he was working while off-duty at an Orange County nightclub. Tyrone Wiggins, who worked "inside security," informed Campbell that he observed an individual who was in a stall in the men's room, and whose foot was up on the toilet. Campbell testified that Wiggins had said that he observed the individual "with his foot on the toilet retrieving something from his boot." According to Campbell, Wiggins believed the individual in the stall was engaged in "suspicious activity" involving illegal narcotics. By that time the individual was within eyeshot, and Wiggins pointed him out to Campbell. Campbell did not recall whether Wiggins and another bouncer brought Morris to him.
Campbell testified that he made casual contact with Morris: Another deputy was present, but he did not question Morris. At some point Campbell obtained an identification card from Morris. The picture on the identification appeared to depict Morris. Campbell advised Morris that he was "the subject of suspicious activity" and asked Morris if he could search him for weapons or contraband. Campbell was uniformed and was holding Morris' identification when he asked permission to search Morris. Campbell did not tell Morris that he was not free to leave or that there would be negative consequences if he refused. Morris consented. Campbell testified that he believed he may have been waiting for a teletype reporting whether there were any outstanding warrants on Morris. Campbell felt a lump in Morris' right sock, rolled down the sock, and discovered a plastic bag containing tablets. The conversation and search took place in a courtyard in front of the establishment. A "matter of minutes" elapsed between the time Campbell first approached Morris and the time he searched Morris.
Morris testified that as he left the establishment he was tapped on the shoulder by a bouncer who asked to speak to Morris outside. One bouncer led, and another walked behind Morris. When he arrived outside, two officers were in front of him and two bouncers were behind him. An officer said, Morris thought he was not free to leave. Further, Morris testified, the officer had his identification, so he could not leave anyway.
On cross-examination Morris admitted that the identification he presented to the officer was fake. Morris testified that he completed high school and one year of college. When the officer pulled out the pills, Morris told him they were MDMA, or ecstasy. He agreed on cross-examination that he had been taught to respect law enforcement because his father is a sheriff. He testified he did not know that he had a choice in the matter of the search, and complied out of respect rather than fear.
The trial court stated at the hearing that the officer had a reasonable suspicion to stop Morris and that Morris' subsequent permission to search was voluntary. Morris concedes that his initial encounter with the deputies was constitutional. He recognizes that the law is well-settled that officers may freely approach a citizen and ask "a few questions" without triggering Fourth Amendment concerns. State v. Collins, 661 So.2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). He contends, however, that the initial encounter evolved into an unlawful investigatory stop. To support his argument, Morris asks this court to consider several indicators: the deputies and bouncers blocked his way so he could not get through; he was accused of being involved in criminal activity; and, the deputy seized his identification, which prevented him from leaving. Citing Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 108 S.Ct. 1975, 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988), Morris argues that under the totality of the circumstances, no reasonable person in his shoes would have felt free to terminate the encounter. See also Barna v. State, 636 So.2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
.
Morris cites the correct law, but overlooks the facts before the court which support the judge's ruling that Morris' consent to the search was freely and voluntarily given. This evidence did not consist merely of the conclusions of the arresting officer, cf. Bailey v. State, 319 So.2d 22 (Fla.1975),
but Morris' own testimony. Morris' father is a sheriff and Morris testified that he was raised to respect and obey law enforcement officers. He agreed that when the police tell you to do something you are supposed to do it. His exact testimony was:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connor v. State
...to cases final as of the date this opinion is released. 4. But see Shannon v. State, 753 So.2d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Morris v. State, 749 So.2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); A.J.M. v. State, 746 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); State v. Jackson, 744 So.2d 545 (Fla. 5th DCA 5. Dr. Levy, Dr. Herre......
-
Murphy v. State, 5D04-1095.
...facts and all reasonable inferences and deductions drawn from them. See Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (Fla.2002); Morris v. State, 749 So.2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). However, the trial court's application of the law to the facts is reviewed under the de novo standard. Phuagnong v. State, 71......
-
Hicks v. State
...and deductions drawn from that evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's ruling. See Morris v. State, 749 So.2d 590, 592 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Thomas v. State, 644 So.2d 597, 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Upon review of such orders legal questions are considered de novo, ......
-
Blake v. State
...court's application of the law to those facts, is de novo. See Woods v. State, 890 So.2d 559 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Morris v. State, 749 So.2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). In the instant case the initial actions of the officer seem to demonstrate nothing more than a consensual encounter. There wa......