Schlanger v. State, 79-1358
| Citation | 397 So.2d 1028 |
| Decision Date | 12 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1358,79-1358 |
| Parties | Steven Lee SCHLANGER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
John M. MacDaniel and Jack T. Frost, Miami, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUBBART, C. J., and NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ. *
We affirm the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress tangible physical evidence because the defendant did not meet his required initial burden, Black v. State, 383 So.2d 295 (Fla.1st DCA 1980); State v. Hinton, 305 So.2d 804 (Fla.4th DCA 1975), to demonstrate: (a) that he had either been "seized" or "stopped"; or (b) that by objective standards, the police interdicted his freedom of movement or passage. Consequently, the trial court was entitled to find that the police contact with the defendant constituted a cooperative encounter. Login v. State, 394 So.2d 183 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). Because there was no taint from an unconstitutional stop or seizure, the state was only required to show, by the preponderance of evidence, United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974), that the warrantless search of the defendant's luggage, procured through his consent, was valid. The ruling of a trial court on a motion to suppress arrives in this court clothed with the presumption of correctness and we will interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions to be derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustain the trial court's ruling. McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410, 412 (Fla.1978).
Affirmed.
* Judge Daniel Pearson participated in the decision in this case but did not hear oral argument.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. State, AI-362
...see also McClain v. State, 408 So.2d 721, 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (referring to this concept as an "encounter"); Schlanger v. State, 397 So.2d 1028, 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 407 So.2d 1105 (Fla.) ("cooperative encounter"); Login v. State, 394 So.2d 183, 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (......
-
State v. Fuksman
...standard); Finney v. State, 420 So.2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (citing Matlock in support of preponderance standard); Schlanger v. State, 397 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) Second, Denehy v. State, 400 So.2d 1216, simply did not eradicate, without the slightest acknowledgment, scores of cases ......
-
Finney v. State
...through the defendant's consent. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); Schlanger v. State, 397 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). There is no requirement that the defendant have knowledge of his right to refuse consent to the search. Schneckloth v. Bustamo......
-
Horatio Enterprises, Inc. v. Rabin
...and appellate courts must interpret the evidence in a manner most favorable to sustain the trial court's rulings. Schlanger v. State, 397 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 407 So.2d 1105 (Fla.1981); McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410 (Fla.1978); Augusta Corp. v. Strawn, 174 So.2d 422 (Fl......