STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ANTHONY M. CHANG, 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 State appeals a trial court's order suppressing a handgun found during a consensual police encounter and search of Chang's automobile. The appellate court reversed, holding that the initial police contact was lawful and that Chang's consent to search was voluntary.
The court held that the initial encounter was a lawful consensual encounter, not an illegal detention. Because no constitutional violation occurred, the State was required only to show by preponderance of the evidence that Chang's consent was voluntary, which it met. No evidence suggested Chang's consent was involuntary.
[1] A police officer's approach to a citizen, request for identification, and check for warrants does not constitute an illegal detention.
[2] Contact between a police officer and a citizen is considered a consensual encounter when the citizen is not seized and is free to leave.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 was no constitutional violation in Officer Schwab approaching Chang, asking for identification, receiving Chang's driver's license, and running a cheek for warrants.”
Establishes that the initial police contact did not constitute a detention 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 intelligenceOfficers observed Chang and two other males in front of a vacant house known for drug trafficking. One male discarded a manila envelope containing mar…
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
BOOTH, Judge.
This cause is before us on the State’s appeal from an order granting Appellee’s motion to suppress. Because we find that the trial court erred in determining that Appellant was illegally detained at the time he gave consent to search his automobile, we reverse and remand.
Officer David Schwab testified at the suppression hearing that at approximately 7:35 p.m. on November 11, 1994, he observed Appellee Anthony Chang and two other males standing in front of a vacant house which had been very active for drug trafficking. As he drove up to the group, Schwab observed one of the males (not Chang) throw a manila envelope to the ground. Officer Schwab and Officer Dave Bisplinghof, who was patrolling with Officer Schwab in another marked police car, stopped their cars behind a car parked in front of the vacant house and approached the three men. Officer Bisplinghof arrested the individual who discarded the envelope after discovering that it contained marijuana.
Officer Schwab asked Chang and the other male what they were doing and if they had any identification. Chang gave the officer his driver’s license. Officer Schwab went to his patrol car and ran their names in the computer to determine if either man was wanted; neither was wanted. Officer Schwab also ran a check on the parked automobile to determine if it had been reported stolen. The computer indicated that the automobile was registered to Chang. Schwab then gave Chang’s driver’s license back to him.
Officer Bisplinghof testified that when Schwab informed Bisplinghof that the parked automobile was registered to Chang, Bisplin-ghof asked Chang if they could search it. Chang gave his permission to search. Officer Schwab then searched Chang’s car and found a 9mm semiautomatic handgun under the driver’s seat.1 Chang was arrested and charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
Prior to trial, Chang filed a motion to suppress the handgun, arguing that it had been obtained through an illegal stop. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, finding that Chang was illegally detained at the point when Officer Schwab cheeked his driver’s license and vehicle registration. The trial court further found that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that Chang’s consent was voluntary.
We hold that the trial court erred in holding that Chang was illegally detained. There was no constitutional violation in Officer Schwab approaching Chang, asking for identification, receiving Chang’s driver’s license, and running a cheek for warrants. State v. Y.B., 659 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (see cases cited therein). The contact between Officer Schwab and Chang was nothing more than a consensual encounter between a police officer and a citizen. See Lightbourne v. State, 438 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1330, 79 L.Ed.2d 725 (1984); State v. Mitchell, 638 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); State v. Barnett, 572 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 581 So. 2d 163 (Fla.1991); State v. Arnold, 475 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 471 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1985).
Since the encounter was consensual, the State was only required to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Chang’s consent was voluntary. Denehy v. State, 400 So. 2d 1216 (Fla.1980) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)); Rodriguez v. State, 519 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (the State’s burden in the absence of taint is preponderance of the evidence). There is no evidence in the record showing that Chang’s consent was anything but voluntary. See, e.g., Denehy, supra; Freeman v. State, 559 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Accordingly, we REVERSE the order suppressing evidence and REMAND this case for trial.
ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. . Officer Schwab also testified that he saw the top of the gun under the seat while looking through the windshield of the car. The trial court did not address the legality of the seizure under the plain view doctrine; thus, we also do not.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Golphin v. State, 945 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2006)…ng that police officer's contact with Robinson, which included the officer retaining Robinson's identification for the purpose of running a warrants check, constituted nothing more than a routine police-citizen consensual encounter); State v. Chang, 668 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (concluding that running a warrants check on the identification of a man standing in front of a house known for drug trafficking in the company of another man who discarded a manila envelope constituted a consensual encounter bet…1 / 2
-
Brye v. State, 927 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…defendant consented to officer’s request to conduct search after officer obtained, but did not yet return, defendant’s driver’s license while another officer ran a warrant check). Appellant’s case is materially distinguishable from State v. Chang, 668 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), in which Officer Schwab observed Mr. Chang and two other males around 7:35 on a November evening, standing in front of a vacant house that was known as a very active site of drug trafficking. See id. at 208. As he drove toward t…
-
Golphin v. State, 838 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…intimidation or harassment as viewed from the position of a reasonable person. AFFIRMED. PALMER, J., concurs. GRIFFIN, J., concurs specially in result only, without opinion. . State v. Robinson, 740 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); State v. Chang, 668 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); State v. Arnold, 475 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). . Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991); Lightbourne v. State, 438 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1983). Baez also relied upon several federal decisions. F…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973)
- Lightbourne v. State, 438 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1983)
- Griffin v. Texas, 465 U.S. 1051 (U.S. 1984)
- Kinnett Dairies, Inc. v. Dairymen, Inc., 465 U.S. 1051 (U.S. 1984)
- Denehy v. State, 400 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1980)
- Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- State v. Arnold, 475 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Freeman v. State, 559 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- State v. Lucious Mitchell, Jr., 638 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Hartwell Baldwin v. Hon. Richard F. Conrad, 572 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)