Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 12, 2001; Florida; State Appellate Court
The State of Florida appeals a trial court's decision to suppress evidence obtained from Robert Earl Kindle's vehicle following a traffic stop. Officer Billy Rhodes initiated the stop due to Kindle's trailer lacking a license plate and taillights. After issuing a citation, Rhodes requested consent to search the vehicle, which Kindle granted. During the search, Sergeant Mark Thompson found hydrocodone pills, leading to Kindle's arrest for possession of a controlled substance. Kindle later filed a motion to suppress, arguing the detention and arrest were illegal and that his consent to search was not valid.
The trial court ruled that while the initial traffic stop was lawful, the consent for the search was invalid because it occurred after the stop's duration exceeded that needed for the citation, and there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justifying continued detention. The appellate court reversed this decision, noting that during a valid traffic stop, officers can request consent to search and if consent is freely given, evidence obtained is typically admissible. The court emphasized that the trial court's factual findings are reviewed for competent evidence, while legal conclusions are assessed de novo.
If a stop is deemed illegal, any subsequent consent to search is typically invalid. The legality of a traffic stop hinges on the officer's probable cause regarding a traffic violation. In this case, the officer had probable cause to stop the vehicle due to an expired temporary tag and inoperative taillights, which violated Florida law regarding vehicle safety. Thus, the initial stop was lawful.
Florida courts mandate that a traffic stop should not exceed the time necessary to issue a citation unless there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The state did not demonstrate evidence of such suspicion during Kindle's stop; however, a detention can continue if the driver voluntarily consents to a search. The state bears the burden to prove that consent was given freely and voluntarily. The trial court found that Kindle did provide such consent following the citation, and this finding was supported by competent evidence. Kindle argued that the consent was invalid because it occurred after the citation was issued and lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, which could justify the suppression of any evidence obtained during the search.
Kindle's argument relies heavily on the precedent set in Gilchrist, which the trial court also cited. However, both the trial court and Kindle misapply Gilchrist, as it is distinguishable from the current case. In Gilchrist, the officer's request for the appellant to exit the vehicle was deemed a show of authority that exceeded a consensual encounter, leading to a ruling that the search was unlawful. In contrast, in the current case, Kindle exited the vehicle before the citation was issued and before any request for consent to search, indicating a consensual encounter rather than a show of authority.
The case of Cromatie is more analogous to the current situation. In Cromatie, after a lawful traffic stop and the issuance of citations, the officer asked for consent to search the vehicle, which the driver granted. The resulting search revealed illegal substances, and the court upheld the legality of the search, asserting that consent obtained after a valid traffic stop does not invalidate the search.
The court further clarified that inquiries about weapons or drugs can be made even after a stop has concluded, as established in Watson v. State and Bostick v. State. In the current appeal, the trial court found the initial traffic stop lawful, and once it transitioned to a citizen encounter, the officer was justified in seeking consent to search. Ultimately, the court concluded that the consent given after the citation was issued did not invalidate the search, leading to a reversal and remand. The notes indicate that while testimony was given regarding the circumstances of the consent and subsequent events, the findings supported the legality of the search.
