STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DERRICK LAVAR NEWTON, 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 held that the trial court's determination that the encounter became a seizure, not a consensual one, was supported by the evidence and should be affirmed.
An officer approached an individual based on a prior drug arrest and asked him to open his mouth. The individual complied, and the officer spotted cra…
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
ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge.
The state appeals an order entered by the trial court granting Newton’s motion to suppress. We affirm.
The arresting officer testified that he walked up to appellee, who was accompanied by two other men, because he knew him and had arrested him before on drug charges, and asked him if he had any dope. When appellee replied in the negative, the officer “asked” him to open his mouth.1 Newton complied, whereupon the officer spotted what he recognized as crack cocaine, ordered Newton to spit out the contents of his mouth, after which Newton was arrested. There was also testimony by Newton and one of the other men that when the officer approached them, he grabbed Newton by the collar, held his flashlight to Newton’s face and ordered Mm to open his mouth.
The trial judge concluded that, in the totality of the circumstances, what may have started as a consensual encounter turned into a seizure, because Newton would not have felt free to leave. A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress comes to the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the appellate court must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustain the trial court’s ruling. McNamara v. State, 357 So. 2d 410 (Fla.1978).
Where evidence involved at the suppression hearing supports both a finding of a consensual encounter and a seizure and where the trial judge makes a factual finding that a reasonable person under the circumstances would not feel that he was free to go, the trial court’s decision to suppress the evidence will be affirmed. See Hollinger v. State, 620 So. 2d 1242 (Fla.1993).
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . The officer testified that appellee had previously been found to carry drugs in his mouth.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blake v. State, 939 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…. 4th DCA 2004) (explaining that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave under circumstances where an officer shines a flashlight in his or her face, approaches with his hand on his weapon, and directs him or her to stand); State v. Newton, 737 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (a reasonable person would not feel free to leave where an officer approached defendant grabbing him by the collar, holding a flashlight to defendant’s face, and ordering him to open his mouth). Consider now Mr. Blake’s purporte…
-
State v. D.F., 92 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…ing that D.F. was illegally seized and that the evidence obtained must be suppressed. In affirming the trial court’s order, we recognize that, as in Hol-linger, there is record evidence that might support a contrary view. See, e.g., State v. Newton, 737 So. 2d 1252, 1252-53 (Fla. 5th [*221] DCA 1999) (“Where evidence involved at the suppression hearing supports both a finding of a consensual encounter and a seizure and where the trial judge makes a factual finding that a reasonable person under the circumstanc…
-
Bradon Robert Holifield v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- McNAMARA v. State, 357 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1978)
- Hollinger v. State, 620 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1993)