Racz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Racz v. State

486 So. 2d 3, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 399, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6384

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 12, 1986

DocketNo. 85-114

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 486 So. 2d 3 (Racz v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Racz v. State, 486 So. 2d 3, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 399, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6384 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction and the trial court’s denial of appellant’s [4]*4motion to suppress. We affirm because we believe there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings as to the issue of consent to search and as to the nature of the encounter between appellant and the police. Jordan v. State, 384 So.2d 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Notwithstanding our affirmance we would caution trial courts to look closely at claims by the police that no detention is involved when they encounter a citizen, identify themselves as police officers and ask for identification. In our view it is the rare citizen who would conclude that he has no legal obligation to cooperate with the police under those circumstances. Similarly, we agree that trial courts are obligated to uphold searches made pursuant to voluntary consent even when the person searched is claimed to have illogically acted completely contrary to his own interests in freely consenting to a search that immediately yields contraband. However, as the case law has repeatedly emphasized, claims of voluntary consent to search should be closely scrutinized and upheld only where established by clear and convincing evidence. Jordan v. State.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction and the trial court’s denial of appellant’s [4]*4motion to suppress. We affirm because we believe there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s findings as to the issue of consent to search and as to the nature of the encounter between appellant and the police. Jordan v. State, 384 So.2d 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Notwithstanding our affirmance we would caution trial courts to look closely at claims by the police that no detention is involved when they encounter a citizen, identify themselves as police officers and ask for identification. In our view it is the rare citizen who would conclude that he has no legal obligation to cooperate with the police under those circumstances. Similarly, we agree that trial courts are obligated to uphold searches made pursuant to voluntary consent even when the person searched is claimed to have illogically acted completely contrary to his own interests in freely consenting to a search that immediately yields contraband. However, as the case law has repeatedly emphasized, claims of voluntary consent to search should be closely scrutinized and upheld only where established by clear and convincing evidence. Jordan v. State.

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

486 So. 2d 3, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 399, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/racz-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack