TORRIS WALLS, 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.
Torris Walls appeals his conviction for cocaine trafficking, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search at Orlando International Airport. The court affirmed, finding the initial encounter was consensual and Walls freely consented to the search, thus implicating no Fourth Amendment violation.
The court held that the police encounter was consensual and not an illegal seizure, and that Walls freely consented to the search of his person and bag. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment was not implicated, and the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress.
[1] An appellate court must presume the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is correct and accept its fact findings if supported by substantial competent evidence.
[2] A consensual encounter between law enforcement officers and an individual does not implicate the Fourth Amendment.
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“Although Walls testified to the contrary, the officers' testimony sufficiently established this was a consensual encounter and that Walls freely consented to the search. Thus the fourth amendment is not implicated.”
Establishes the holding that the encounter was consensual and no Fourth Amendment violation occurred.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo undercover Orlando police officers encountered Walls in a Southwest Airlines passenger waiting area at Orlando International Airport. One officer …
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 Unlawful Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
Walls appeals from his conviction and sentence for trafficking in 400 grams or more of cocaine.1 He moved to suppress evidence of the cocaine and after a hear ing, the trial court denied his motion. He pled no contest, but reserved his right to appeal the trial court’s suppression ruling. We have jurisdiction,2 and affirm.
Walls argues the evidence at the suppression hearing established he was illegally seized by two Orlando police officers (members of the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation), at the Orlando International Airport and the resulting search of his person was the fruit of the illegal detention, to which he did not consent. See Dozier v. State, 766 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Sims v. State, 743 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). In reviewing these issues, we must take the trial court’s ruling as presumptively correct and accept its fact findings, if supported by substantial competent evidence. Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954 (Fla.1996); State v. Nova, 361 So. 2d 411, 412 (Fla.1978).
Testimony at the hearing by the two police officers involved in this ease sufficiently establishes that no illegal detention was initially involved. The officers were dressed in street clothes (undercover) and displayed no weapons. The encounter took place in Southwest Airlines’ passenger waiting area. One officer, Permaul, was tipped off by another, Schulte, that Schulte had stopped Walls’ vehicle in 1998 on the Florida Turnpike, and seized $53,000 in cash and that he recognized Walls. Permaul approached Walls to question him about his travel plans and requested to see his ticket. Permaul returned the ticket. He then asked Walls if he would consent to a search of his person and his bag, but he also testified Walls was free to leave or walk away from him. Walls agreed to the search. He handed Permaul the bag. A pat-down search of his person by Schulte revealed the cocaine.
Although Walls testified to the contrary, the officers’ testimony sufficiently established this was a consensual encounter and that Walls freely consented to the search. Thus the fourth amendment is not implicated.3 Walls testified he was well aware of his right to refuse a police officer’s request to search, based on prior experience in another case, and his attorney’s instructions.
Walls testified he granted the officer’s request to search his bag, but refused the search of his person. The trial court stated it resolved the conflict in evidence between Walls’ testimony and the testimony of the police officers, partially on the ground that had Walls intended to deny consent to a search, he would have refused all consent, not just that of his person. We cannot say the trial court’s determination is clearly erroneous. Davis v. State, 594 So. 2d 264 (Fla.1992); State v. Smith, 632 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
AFFIRMED.
TPIOMPSON, CJ., and PALMER, J., concur. . § 893.03(2)(a)(4), Fla. Stat. (2000).
. Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b); Jones v. State, 806 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Johnson v. State, 785 So. 2d 1224, n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. See also Thomasset v. State, 761 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); State v. Poole, 730 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen v. State, 909 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…s not told that he or she may decline the request to search does not vitiate the consensual nature of the response. State v. Poole, 730 So. 2d 340, 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Hosey v. State, 627 So. 2d 1289, 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). . Walls v. State, 814 So. 2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 835 So. 2d 271 (Fla.2002).…
-
Woods v. State, 890 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…and jeopardizing the validity of the search. Such a procedure is contrary to officer safety and common sense. The State met its burden of proving that the necessary consent to empty his pockets was freely and voluntarily .given. See Walls v. State, 814 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (affirming denial of suppression motion where record showed that encounter was consensual and that during encounter, defendant was asked to and freely consented to search of his person). There was no unlawful detention. I would a…
-
J.P. v. State, 895 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…n reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, this court must take the trial court’s rulings as presumptively correct and accept its factual findings so long as those findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. [*1204] Walls v. State, 814 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). In determining whether a juvenile’s confession is voluntary, the relevant circumstances are: (a) the manner in which the police administered Miranda rights, (b) the juvenile’s age, experience, education, background and intelli…
Authorities Cited
- Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1996)
- Twana Davis v. State, 594 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Nova, 361 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1978)
- Johnson v. State, 785 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- State v. Daile Lee Poole, 730 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Thomasset v. State, 761 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- State v. Smith, 632 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Sims v. State, 743 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Jones v. State, 806 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Sharod Dozier v. State, 766 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)