ANNIE DENORA BURKE, 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.
Annie Burke appeals the denial of a motion to suppress evidence in a drug possession case, challenging both the initial police encounter and the search of her purse. The court affirmed, holding that the encounter was a consensual one not rising to the level of a Terry stop, and that the warrantless search of the purse was lawful based on voluntary consent and probable cause.
The initial encounter was a consensual one, not a Terry stop, because there was no evidence Burke was not free to leave or refuse the deputy's requests. The search of the purse was lawful based on Burke's voluntary and consensual surrender of it. The search of the tinfoil packets inside was lawful based on probable cause, as the packaging itself indicated the likely presence of controlled substances.
[1] A police officer's encounter with an individual in a public area, where the officer asks questions and the individual is free to leave and refuse requests, does not const…
[2] A search of a purse is lawful when the owner voluntarily and consensually surrenders the purse for examination.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“There is no evidence the encounter between appellant and Deputy Pitman was a stop as in Terry v. Ohio, 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).”
Establishes that the police encounter was consensual, not a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputy Pitman observed Burke walking slowly down South Orange Blossom Trail in an area known for adult businesses. Believing her to be a prostitute, h…
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 Consensual Encounter cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying the suppression of evidence in a drug possession case.
Appellant was walking slowly down South Orange Blossom Trail in Orange County, an infamous area noted for its pornographic stores and shows, appearing to Deputy Pitman to be a prostitute. He approached her in order to find out her name and see if she was one of the prostitutes listed in his intelligence book. He asked her for identification, she had none, so he asked her to open her purse so he could see if she had a weapon or identification. Without any objection she handed her purse to him and he opened it to find some foil packets. The aluminum foil packets contained what the deputy believed were probably drugs. Upon opening one of them he found a white powdery substance which appeared to be a street drug. She was arrested for the possession.
Appellant raises two issues on appeal. One, that the initial stop was illegal and, two, that the seizure and search of the purse was illegal making the seizure of the drugs violative of the appellant’s fourth amendment rights.
There is no evidence the encounter between appellant and Deputy Pitman was a stop as in Terry v. Ohio, 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.Ed.2d 165 (1984); Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983); State v. Walden, 464 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).
In regard to the second ground, the opening of the purse and its contents, the evidence before the court shows that appellant voluntarily and consensually surrendered her purse for search. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Norman v. State, 379 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1980); Bailey v. State, 319 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1975); Taylor v. State, 355 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The search of the tinfoil packets found inside the purse was a lawful search based upon probable cause. It doesn’t take a policeman to know those small square tinfoil packets contained either heroin, cocaine, hashish or amphetamines. No warrant was needed to search the packets and appellant has not contended one was needed.
When a policeman comes upon a person in a public area and asks questions there is no fourth amendment intrusion. When the answers are incriminating or the conduct gives a founded suspicion then further investigation, even detention, may be warranted and proper. When a policeman merely asks to see inside a purse or a pocket or a car or a house and lawful consent is given then no fourth amendment violation occurs.
The order denying suppression is affirmed, as is the judgment of guilt for possession of amphetamines.
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
State v. Wilson, 566 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…endant’s responses provided the officer with a well-founded suspicion that the defendant was about to become involved in illegal drug activity. See Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 471 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1985); Burke v. State, 465 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The officer learned of the defendant’s intention to go to room 404 and locate his white girlfriend, and knew the room was used to conduct drug purchases and no white people were there. We think the information possessed by the o…
-
State v. Fuksman, 468 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…and those which do not expressly declare what standard is being [*1073] used, but, based on the facts set forth in the opinion, cite to the wrong line of cases, thus obliterating the distinction between Denehy and Norman. See, e.g., Burke v. State, 465 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).…
-
State v. Earnest Smith and Daniel Oliver, 477 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…cognized that, in this context, law enforcement officers can indeed initiate contacts with citizens without creating a stop and seizure situation. 464 So. 2d at 692-693. See also Sommer v. State, 465 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Burke v. State, 465 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In the present case, the officer saw two individuals and two bicycles near a dumpster in an area where generally only employees are found. The individuals appeared to be sharing something out of a brown paper bag. Being aware o…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983)
- Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (U.S. 1984)
- Norman v. State, 379 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1980)
- Bailey v. State, 319 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)
- Lightbourne v. State, 438 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1983)
- Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1984)
- Taylor v. State, 355 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Lothar Sommer v. State, 465 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)