State v. Jerome

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Jerome

541 So. 2d 756, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 912, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1942, 1989 WL 33952

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 1989

DocketNo. 87-3119

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 541 So. 2d 756 (State v. Jerome) 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

State v. Jerome, 541 So. 2d 756, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 912, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1942, 1989 WL 33952 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court granted a motion to suppress the fruits of a “bus-stop” search. We affirm. The issue below, and therefore here, was whether appellee’s consent to the search was voluntary. We have previously held that such a search is not per se impermissible under the fourth amendment. State v. Avery, 531 So.2d 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Thus, the voluntariness of a consent under the circumstances is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court from the totality of all of the attendant circumstances. Denehy v. State, 400 So.2d 1216 (Fla.1980). Consent is not voluntary if it is made only in submission to apparent police authority. See Hunter v. State, 518 So.2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

An inquiry into the voluntary character of consent to search should include all the surrounding circumstances, the conduct of the police officers and the ability of the particular defendant to understand and rationally respond to the request for consent. Alvarez v. State, 515 So.2d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

There was a specific finding by the trial court “that the consent given by the defendant was in fact only submission to apparent police authority.” While the court applied an incorrect standard in weighing the evidence, we are satisfied that the voluntariness of the consent to search was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, which is the standard that should have been applied. See Denehy, 400 So.2d at 1217.

Accordingly, we affirm the order on appeal.

HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court granted a motion to suppress the fruits of a “bus-stop” search. We affirm. The issue below, and therefore here, was whether appellee’s consent to the search was voluntary. We have previously held that such a search is not per se impermissible under the fourth amendment. State v. Avery, 531 So.2d 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Thus, the voluntariness of a consent under the circumstances is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court from the totality of all of the attendant circumstances. Denehy v. State, 400 So.2d 1216 (Fla.1980). Consent is not voluntary if it is made only in submission to apparent police authority. See Hunter v. State, 518 So.2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

An inquiry into the voluntary character of consent to search should include all the surrounding circumstances, the conduct of the police officers and the ability of the particular defendant to understand and rationally respond to the request for consent. Alvarez v. State, 515 So.2d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

There was a specific finding by the trial court “that the consent given by the defendant was in fact only submission to apparent police authority.” While the court applied an incorrect standard in weighing the evidence, we are satisfied that the voluntariness of the consent to search was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, which is the standard that should have been applied. See Denehy, 400 So.2d at 1217.

Accordingly, we affirm the order on appeal.

HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

541 So. 2d 756, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 912, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1942, 1989 WL 33952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jerome-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack