State v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 15 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-00925,93-00925 |
| Citation | 638 So.2d 1015 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D1325 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Lucious MITCHELL, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Ann P. Corcoran, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Jennifer Y. Fogle, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.
The State challenges the trial court's order of suppression. Because we agree with the State that the search of Mitchell's vehicle was proper following his lawful custodial arrest, we reverse.
At the suppression hearing, Deputy Hough testified that he first saw Mitchell's automobile at 3:00 a.m. in a dark area of a closed gas station's parking lot. Ten minutes before, the automobile had not been there. The area had been the target of scores of recent burglaries that primarily occurred between midnight and 6:00 a.m. The gas station itself had been burglarized several times. Deputy Hough had received no reports of ongoing criminal activity. When he first saw the vehicle, there appeared to be no occupant; however, as he pulled into the gas station to perform a vehicle check, his headlights revealed Mitchell inside the parked car. He approached and asked Mitchell what he was doing. Mitchell said he was waiting for a female friend, but he did not know when she would arrive. The deputy thought Mitchell was very evasive.
Deputy Hough requested and Mitchell supplied a Florida identification card. The deputy testified that Mitchell was free to leave. He ran a computer check that disclosed the existence of an outstanding warrant for Mitchell's arrest. Hough returned to the vehicle, explained this development and asked Mitchell to get out of the vehicle. At this point he was not free to leave. As he spoke with Mitchell, he noticed something silver that he could not identify on the floorboard. He thought Mitchell had been trying to conceal it. Mitchell did not move toward it when asked to exit the car. Once Mitchell exited the car, the deputy patted him down, handcuffed him and placed him in the back seat of the patrol car.
Hough returned to the vehicle's open door and observed what appeared to be a rock cocaine pipe and a small ring baggie between the driver's and the passenger's positions on the front seat. He then searched a plastic bag full of men's clothes which also contained a ring baggie. The silver object was a cocaine pipe. Hough subsequently decided that if Mitchell would sign a waiver slip, he would not impound the car. He moved the car to a lighted area, locked it up and gave Mitchell the keys.
Mitchell's counsel conceded at the suppression hearing that the stop was valid, and that the subsequent request for identification, computer check and arrest were valid. Instead, he challenged the validity of the search and seizure of the vehicle after Mitchell's arrest. On appeal, the appellant also argues that his initial detention was invalid.
The State argues that the stop was a consensual one, and that the subsequent search and seizure was proper because of the valid custodial arrest. The State alternatively contends that the search was justified because the plain view doctrine provided the deputy with probable cause to believe that contraband was in the vehicle.
We agree with the State that the initial encounter was a consensual one. The officer was in a constitutionally permissive area when Mitchell provided identification to the deputy. "There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the street." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). There exists a distinction between an intrusion by police amounting to a "seizure" of the person and an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Golphin v. State
...Fourth District has determined it is a seizure; comparing Watts v. State, 788 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (en banc); State v. Mitchell, 638 So.2d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); and McLane v. Rose, 537 So.2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), with Baez and Perko), notice invoking discretionary jurisdiction......
-
Golphin v. State
...District has determined it is a seizure; comparing Watts v. State, 788 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (en banc); State v. Mitchell, 638 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); and McLane v. Rose, 537 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), with Baez and Perko), notice invoking discretionary jurisdiction fil......
-
People v. LeBlanc
...949 S.W.2d 704, 706 [presence of cocaine pipe in plain view warranted further search of defendant's person]; State v. Mitchell (Fla.App.1994) 638 So.2d 1015, 1016 [discovery of cocaine pipes and ring "baggie" in front seat of defendant's car provided officer with probable cause to search co......
-
State v. Dawson
...there exist intimidating circumstances leading the person to reasonably believe he was not free to leave...."); State v. Mitchell, 638 So.2d 1015, 1016 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1994) (stating that an officer may address questions to anyone on the street and that such questioning will usually const......