THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
SANDRA HAMMONDS, 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.
Florida appeals a trial court's suppression of evidence from a search of luggage at a railroad platform. The court held that the defendant's initial consent to search her first piece of luggage was valid, but her explicit withdrawal of consent to search a second piece of luggage—stating it contained her underwear—was effective, and her subsequent silence could not be construed as continued permission to search.
The court held that the appellee's explicit statement that she did not want the officer to search the second piece of luggage because it contained her underwear constituted a valid withdrawal of consent, and her silence thereafter could not be construed as continued permission to search the luggage.
[1] A defendant's silence following a request to search a second piece of luggage, after initially consenting to a search of two pieces, does not constitute continued consent…
[2] A defendant's statement that a bag contains underwear constitutes a withdrawal of consent to search that bag.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“This was a withdrawal of her consent to a search and her silence thereafter could not be construed as continued permission.”
Establishes the core holding that explicit withdrawal of consent is effective and silence does not restore consent.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing an encounter at a railroad platform, the appellee gave a law enforcement officer permission to search her luggage consisting of two pieces. …
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 Implied Consent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Following a railroad platform encounter the appellee gave a law enforcement officer permission to search her luggage consisting of two pieces. He first searched a “tote bag”. As he was finishing searching the “tote bag”, the appellee opened the second piece of luggage, a suitcase, and started to go through it. She withdrew without comment when the officer told her he would rather search it himself. Subsequently she stated she did not want the officer to search the second piece of luggage because it contained her underwear. This was a withdrawal of her consent to a search and her silence thereafter could not be construed as continued permission.1 Correa v. State, 389 So. 2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 399 So. 2d 1146 (Fla.1981); Major v. State, 389 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 408 So. 2d 1095 (Fla.1981); see also Hutchinson v. State, 505 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). In its supplemental order, the trial court stated:
“The Court still holds that the initial encounter was permissible. The Court finds that the defendant consented to the search of the first bag (p. 14). After searching the tote bag, Officer Facchiano did not want the defendant to go through the second bag herself. Detective Fac-chiano then asked her if it was okay if he did the searching and the defendant said nothing, (p. 13) Detective Facchiano was concerned for his safety due to the location of the search, a train station rather than an airport with security detectors. The detective found a plastic bag secreted in the clothing within the bag.
The defendant’s silence cannot be construed as an unlimited consent to look into her undergarments where the cocaine was secreted.”
The trial court’s decision is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. There is no contention that the officer had probable cause to believe the appellee was engaged in unlawful conduct,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jimenez v. State, 643 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…pped-up bags in her purse. 505 So. 2d at 580-81. This court found that the totality of the circumstances did not support a conclusion that the defendant consented to a search of the small bag which contained the cocaine. See also State v. Hammonds, 557 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (after consenting to search of her luggage, defendant withdrew her consent to search of second bag, and cocaine found in that bag was properly suppressed). In this case, as in Hutchinson, no words were spoken by the defendant, bu…
-
Phillips v. State, 707 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…rroneous. It is well settled that in the context of a consensual encounter, a voluntary consent to search can be withdrawn. See Parker v. State, 693 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Jimenez v. State, 643 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Hammonds, 557 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Nease v. State, 484 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). In Jimenez, this court concluded that while the defendant had originally consented to a search, he “withdrew his consent when he twice grabbed the deputy’s hand in an apparent a…
-
Patrice Parker v. State, 693 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ound. She further argues that any consent the officers thought they had been given to search the tissue was withdrawn by her when she placed her foot on the tissue. We agree. See Jimenez v. State, 643 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Hammonds, 557 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Goldberg v. State, 407 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The question remains, however, whether the officers had probable cause to believe that Parker was carrying contraband in the tissue and were therefore authorized to retrieve…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Major v. State, 389 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Hutchinson v. State, 505 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Correa v. State, 389 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)