PERVIS TAYLOR, 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.
Taylor appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of marijuana found during a police search, arguing the search was unconstitutional. The trial court found no illegal seizure and determined Taylor voluntarily consented to the search based on the officer's credible testimony. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the officer's version of events was controlling and the encounter was consensual.
The court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion. The trial court's finding that Officer Dejarnett's account of events was credible was controlling, and those facts established both a lawful consensual encounter and voluntary consent to the search. The voluntariness of consent is determined de novo based on the totality of circumstances, but here the factual findings supported the legality of the search.
[1] A trial court's factual findings regarding a suppression hearing are controlling if supported by competent evidence.
[2] The voluntariness of consent to a search is determined de novo based on the totality of the circumstances.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Whether a person has consented to a search is a mixed question of fact and law.”
Establishes the standard of review: factual findings are controlling if supported by competent evidence, while voluntariness is reviewed de novo.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor returned to his apartment intending to visit his cousin, leaving his truck running. Police officers approached him as he walked back toward his…
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 Possession Of Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor pled no contest to a charge of possession of cannabis1 after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence of the crime. He duly reserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling and it was deemed determinative of the case. We have jurisdiction 2 and we affirm.
At the suppression hearing, Taylor’s testimony about his encounter with police officers and whether or not he consented to a search of his person conflicted materially with the testimony of the police officers. Taylor said he returned to his apartment after work, intending to talk briefly to his cousin who lived in a nearby apartment. He left his truck running and parked near a fence which surrounded the apartment complex.
When he commenced his return to his truck, Taylor was approached by two uniformed police officers. Officer Dejarnett asked him if he could talk with him. Taylor testified that he said he did not do anything wrong, but he continued to talk to Dejarnett. Taylor said he did not feel free to leave. When asked if he would consent to a search of his person, he said he refused. However, the police searched him anyway and discovered marijuana in his side pocket.
Officer Dejarnett testified his unit was looking for stolen vehicles, narcotics and other illegal activity which occurred in Taylor’s neighborhood. The three officers in Dejarnett’s vehicle saw Taylor standing behind a fenced yard, next to apartments. They saw him go into an apartment. Officer Dejarnett walked towards the front of the apartments.
When Taylor came out of the apartments and walked towards his truck, Officer Dejarnett approached him on a “hunch” he was involved in illegal activity. The “hunch” was based on the fact that Taylor had walked away from the officers when they first saw him, and this is a high-crime area. Officer Dejarnett said Taylor was free to leave at that point. He asked if he could talk with him and Taylor said “sure.” De-jarnett asked him where he lived, whether he had identification, and what was he doing there. He also asked Taylor if he had any contraband or weapons. He said Taylor said “no.” Officer Dejarnett asked if he could search him and Taylor said “okay,” raising his arms up. In the course of the search, marijuana was found.
The trial court prophetically stated that this was going to be a “swearing” contest. After hearing the testimony, the judge found there was no illegal seizure of Taylor, but rather that he had consented to the search.
Whether a person has consented to a search is a mixed question of fact and law. Connor v. State, 803 So. 2d 598 (Fla.2001). See also Ornelas v. U.S., 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). If there is competent evidence to support the trial court’s determination of facts, as in this case, they are controlling. Thereafter the voluntariness of the consent vel non is determined on a de novo standard, based on the totality of the circumstances. Connor. In this case, Officer Dejarnett’s version of the facts is controlling. Viewing the circumstances as he explained them leaves us no basis to conclude that the initial encounter between Taylor and Officer Dejarnett was anything other than consensual, and that Taylor voluntarily consented to a search of his person. See Lecorn v. State, 832 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Eldridge v. State, 817 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur. . § 893.03(l)(c)(7), Florida Statutes (2002).
. See, Florida Rule App. Proc. 9.140(b)(2); § 924.051(4), Florida Statutes (2002); Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla.2000); Carroll v. State, 761 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 865 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…competent evidence to support them. However, our application of the law to the facts, including our determination of whether Appellant’s consent was objectively voluntary, is de novo. State v. Glatzmayer, 789 So. 2d 297 (Fla.2001); Taylor v. State, 848 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). On February 24, 2001, the Orange County Sheriffs Office received via telephone an anonymous tip that unnamed individuals at 3812 Edland Drive were involved in narcotics activity. The tip was referred to a special “tip squad,” w…
-
Ferryman v. State, 919 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). If the evidentiary findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, we will ordinarily not disturb the decision of the trial court. See Zakrzewski v. State, 866 So. 2d 688, 696 (Fla.2003); see also Taylor v. State, 848 So. 2d 1191, 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). Mr. Ferryman seeks to suppress the seizure from his house and from a vehicle by law enforcement officers of numerous items that were stolen in burglaries. Mr. Ferryman’s wife gave consent to the searches. The trial court…
-
Bryon Keith Wheeler v. State, 62 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…and fact. We defer to the trial court regarding factual disputes, but afford no deference in applying the law to the facts. United States v. Johnson, 256 F. 3d 895, 913 (9th Cir.2001); State v. Glatzmayer, 789 So. 2d 297 (Fla.2001); Taylor v. State, 848 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). . Although not conclusive, "[Qencing configurations are important factors in defining the curtilage." Dunn, 480 U.S. at 301 n. 4, 107 S.Ct. 1134. '“[F]or most homes, the boundaries of the curtilage will be clearly marked; and t…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996)
- Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)
- Seburt Nelson Connor v. State, 803 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 2001)
- Lecorn v. State, 832 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Eldridge v. State, 817 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Carroll v. State, 761 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)