STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSE FRANCISCO RIVERA, 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 an officer does not need a founded suspicion of criminal activity to request consent to search.
[1] An officer need not have a reasonable or founded suspicion of criminal activity before seeking consent to search.
[2] A court may reconsider and reverse a prior ruling on a motion to suppress based on subsequent controlling appellate precedent.
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 intelligenceThe State appealed an order suppressing evidence obtained from a consensual search. The trial court initially denied the motion to suppress, finding c…
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 Search cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
The State has appealed an order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. We reverse.
This case involves a slightly unusual procedural circumstance. The defendant originally filed a motion to suppress on which the court held a hearing and issued a detailed order specifying its findings. The court held that the State had proven by the preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had freely and voluntarily consented to the search leading to his arrest, and that his consent was not induced by fear of the police or acquiescence to their authority. Shortly thereafter, however, the defendant’s attorney filed a motion for reconsideration, urging that the court reverse its decision on the basis of this court’s rulings in McElwain v. State, 777 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), and Cubby v. State, 707 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), which held that officers without a founded suspicion of criminal activity are not justified in conducting a patdown of a suspect, even if the suspect consents to the search. The circuit court in this case found the defense motion well taken and reversed its previous ruling, thereby suppressing the evidence and statements flowing from the consensual search on the grounds that the officer who stopped the defendant had no objective justification to request the search.
When the circuit court entered its order reconsidering its previous denial of the motion to suppress, it did so without the benefit of this court’s subsequent en banc opinion in Watts v. State, 788 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). In Watts we receded from Cubby and McElwain and held that “an officer need not have a reasonable or founded suspicion of criminal activity before seeking consent to search.” Watts, 788 So. 2d at 1042-43. The effect of Watts was to return the law to the state in which it had been when the circuit court issued its original ruling.
Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal, reinstate the order denying the motion to suppress that was filed of record on October 5, 2000, and remand for further proceedings.
ALTENBERND and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Camila Ashby v. Murray, 113 So. 3d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…2d 37, 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (maintaining custody with appellee until the trial court could conduct a proper full hearing “[b]e-cause the nature of a custody award involves the welfare and protection of children .... ”); see also Berger v. Berger, 813 So. 2d 233, 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). REVERSED and REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. SAWAYA and LAWSON, JJ., concur. . Mother was held in contempt for refusing to provide the court with her current address, telephone number, employment, and the location of the child…
Authorities Cited
- Watts v. State, 788 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Cubby v. State, 707 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Brown v. State, 777 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)