State v. Santana

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Santana

165 So. 3d 58, 2015 WL 2393640

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 20, 2015

DocketNo. 3D14-2132

StatusPublished

This text of 165 So. 3d 58 (State v. Santana) 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. Santana, 165 So. 3d 58, 2015 WL 2393640 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

LOGUE, J.

The State appeals an order suppressing evidence. The trial court concluded that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would not have felt free to leave. Viewing the evidence presented at the suppression hearing in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s ruling, and reviewing de novo the application of law to the historical facts, we affirm. Compare J.N. v. State, 778 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (concluding that a juvenile’s encounter with police was a seizure where three uniformed police officers “ordered him to stop and arguably blocked [his] passage with the police vehicles”), and F.E.H., Jr. v. State, 28 So.3d 213, 216-17 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding a juvenile’s encounter with police was a seizure where a detective’s “order” to “come here” combined with the presence of four or five other officers conducting a police sweep “created a display of authority sufficient to convince a reasonable juvenile that he had no choice but to comply with the detective’s direction”), with E.V. v. State, 138 So.3d 1163, 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (holding a juvenile’s encounter with one police officer was consensual where the juvenile testified that the officer “asked me come over here”).

Affirmed.

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

LOGUE, J.

The State appeals an order suppressing evidence. The trial court concluded that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would not have felt free to leave. Viewing the evidence presented at the suppression hearing in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s ruling, and reviewing de novo the application of law to the historical facts, we affirm. Compare J.N. v. State, 778 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (concluding that a juvenile’s encounter with police was a seizure where three uniformed police officers “ordered him to stop and arguably blocked [his] passage with the police vehicles”), and F.E.H., Jr. v. State, 28 So.3d 213, 216-17 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding a juvenile’s encounter with police was a seizure where a detective’s “order” to “come here” combined with the presence of four or five other officers conducting a police sweep “created a display of authority sufficient to convince a reasonable juvenile that he had no choice but to comply with the detective’s direction”), with E.V. v. State, 138 So.3d 1163, 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (holding a juvenile’s encounter with one police officer was consensual where the juvenile testified that the officer “asked me come over here”).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 So. 3d 58, 2015 WL 2393640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-santana-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack