KEITH MYERS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, finding competent and substantial evidence supported the findings of lawful detention and valid consent to search despite appellate skepticism about the consent evidence.
A trial court's findings of lawful detention and valid consent to search are affirmed when supported by competent and substantial evidence, even if the appellate court harbors doubts about the credibility of the consent testimony.
[1] A trial court's credibility determinations regarding police officer testimony are not disturbed on appeal when the findings are supported by competent and substantial evi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers responded to a noise disturbance call at a motel and encountered the appellant in shorts without a shirt carrying a radio. One officer…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Lawful Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. This is an appeal challenging the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress. The evidentiary basis for the court’s ruling consists solely of the testimony of two police officers who responded to a noise disturbance call at a motel in the early morning hours and encountered the appellant in shorts but without a shirt walking around the premises with a “blaster” type radio. One of the officers knew appellant and knew he did not reside at the motel. While the officers were questioning appellant about his identification, appellant gave his purse to the officers indicating that they could look inside since they were “going to do so anyway.” Illicit drugs were found inside the purse.
The trial court found the initial detention lawful and further found that the appellant consented to the search of his purse. Upon review of the record we must confess that we are somewhat skeptical of the evidence of consent.
However, the only evidence presented was the testimony of the officers. Further, the officers’ credibility was for the trial court to assess. Despite our misgivings we conclude that there is competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings. Having made that determination, we cannot disturb the trial court’s ruling. Jordan v. State, 384 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
ANSTEAD, C.J., and BARKETT, J., concur. GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs in result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burke v. State, 465 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…io, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) but was an encounter as in Sommer v. State, 465 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) and Lightbourne v. State, 438 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1983) and the cases cited in those two cases. See also Myers v. State, 462 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). There was no evidence appellant was not always free to leave and free to refuse the deputy’s requests. See I.N.S. v. Delgado, - U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984); Florida v. Rodriguez, - U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 308, 83 L.E…
Authorities Cited
- Jordan v. State, 384 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Corinne Hartman v. Hartman, 384 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)