V.H., 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.
V.H. was adjudicated delinquent for drug possession after police conducted a warrantless search. The appellate court reversed, holding that the officer's testimony failed to establish that V.H. unequivocally consented to the search, and that the police lacked probable cause to conduct it.
The court held that V.H.'s response of 'Yes' to the question 'Do you mind if I search you?' did not unequivocally establish consent and instead tended to establish that he did not consent. The motion to suppress should have been granted.
[1] A warrantless search is presumed unreasonable unless it falls within an exception to the warrant requirement, such as consent.
[2] To establish consent to a search, the State must prove that consent was unequivocally given and not merely a deference to police authority.
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“consent was unequivocally given, and not merely deference to the apparent authority of the police”
Establishes the legal standard for valid consent to a warrantless search
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers in narcotics vests stopped V.H. for riding a bike without headlights. Officers told V.H. they were conducting narcotics complaints in …
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 Burden Of Proof For Consent cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
V.H. challenges his adjudication of delinquency for possession of cocaine and possession of cannabis. He entered a no contest plea to the charges, specifically reserving the right to appeal the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress. We agree with V.H. that the police had no probable cause to search him and that the State failed to prove that he consented to the search. Accordingly, we reverse.
Generally, warrantless searches or seizures are per se unreasonable unless the search or seizure falls within an exception to the warrant requirement, one of which is consent. Smith v. State, 753 So. 2d 713, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Under this exception, the State must show that “consent was unequivocally given, and not merely deference to the apparent authority of the police.” Thompson v. State, 555 So. 2d 970, 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). If there is any doubt as to whether consent was given, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the person who was searched. Robinson v. State, 388 So. 2d 286, 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
At the suppression hearing, the State offered the following testimony of Officer Cion Bell to establish that V.H. consented to the search:
Q: [Prosecutor]: Okay. Officer Jordan and McCoy, how were they dressed?
A: [Officer Bell]: They had on their police vests. At the time I got out of the truck I put my vest on.
Q: Okay. Okay, so tell us what happened when you — when you first came into contact with the Defendant?
A: We — we told him that he didn’t have any headlights on the bike; that he needed — that he needed lights on the bike. I then, since it was a — we were conducting narcotics complaints, I then advised him that what we are — we were there in the area conducting narcotics complaints. I asked him if he had any narcotics on him. He said no. I asked if I could search him. He consented and—
Q: Okay. Did you — how did you ask him, you know, if you could search him? Did you just — describe your tone of voice.
A: I said, “Do you have any narcotics on you?” He said, “No.”
Q: Just like that?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay.
A: I said, “Do you mind if I search you?” and he said, “Yes.”
This exchange does not unequivocally establish V.H.’s consent. See State v. Kassidy, 495 So. 2d 907, 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (holding that a response of “sure” to the question “do you mind if I pat you down?” did not establish consent); Robinson, 388 So. 2d at 291 (holding that the defendant’s response of “yeah” to the question “do you mind if I search?” raised a doubt as to whether the defendant had consented to the search of his person). On the contrary, it tends to establish that V.H. did not consent. Accordingly, V.H.’s motion to suppress should have been granted.
Reversed.
SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stevie R. Robinson v. State, 976 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…nsufficient to supply probable cause for a search. State v. Witherspoon, 924 So. 2d 868, 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Another manner to uphold a warrantless search of an individual is when there has been a voluntary consent to the search. V.H. v. State, 903 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). However, once an individual consents to a search, he or she has the right to withdraw that consent. Smith v. State, 753 So. 2d 713, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Williams v. State, 727 So. 2d 1050, 1052 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). When an…
-
State v. Moninger, 957 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…s or was requested to do so[.]” It is well established that the officers would need a search warrant or an excep [*6] tion to the warrant requirement, such as consent, to validly enter Moninger’s residence to search for evidence. See V.H. v. State, 903 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Here, the officers could have sought a search warrant or could have asked for Moninger’s consent to search, but they chose neither option.3 Further, there is no evidence that the daughter consented or had authority to consen…
-
K.W. v. State, 183 So. 3d 1123 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…e officer’s request.” State v. Bell, 122 So. 3d 422, 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing G.M., 19 So. 3d at 977). “If there is any doubt as to whether consent was given, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the person who was searched.” V.H. v. State, 903 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing Robinson v. State, 388 So. 2d 286, 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)). To waive search and seizure rights, the evidence must demonstrate that the defendant voluntarily permitted or expressly invited and agreed to the search. Ba…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 753 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Robinson v. State, 388 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Thompson v. State, 555 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- State v. Kassidy, 495 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)