ANTOINE J. BYRD, APPELLANT,

v.

UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND SERV PRO, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• State v. Taj Jevon Dixon, 976 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
  …, not a consensual encounter), with United States v. Simmons, 918 F. 2d 476 (5th Cir.1990) (finding contact was a consensual encounter), and State v. Poole, 730 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (finding contact was consensual encounter). State v. R.H., 900 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), cited by the State, is distinguishable. There, police made casual conversation with the defendant, rather than, as here, immediately pulling out their badges and stating they were drug detectives. Further, in R.H., this court sp…
• R.J.C. v. State, 84 So. 3d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
  …ve or freedom to refuse to answer inquiries.... ” Id. at 187. In determining whether an encounter is consensual, the central inquiry is whether a reasonable person would feel free to disregard the police and go about his business. See State v. R.H., 900 So. 2d 689, 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). In United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980), the Supreme Court adopted a “totality of the circumstances” approach to determining whether a person has been seized within the meaning o…
• Smith v. State, 87 So. 3d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
  …ot invoked.” Id. In distinguishing between a consensual encounter and a seizure, courts review whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a “reasonable person would feel free to disregard the police and go about his business.” State v. R.H., 900 So. 2d 689, 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (internal quotations omitted). In G.M. v. State, 19 So. 3d 973 (Fla.2009), the Florida Supreme Court found that there is no per se rule that “the activation [*87] of police lights is dispositive of a finding that an individ…