From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Newton

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Aug 13, 1999
737 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Opinion

No. 99-34.

Opinion filed August 13, 1999.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Margaret T. Waller, Judge.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Noel A. Pelella, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


The state appeals an order entered by the trial court granting Newton's motion to suppress. We affirm.

The arresting officer testified that he walked up to appellee, who was accompanied by two other men, because he knew him and had arrested him before on drug charges, and asked him if he had any dope. When appellee replied in the negative, the officer "asked" him to open his mouth. Newton complied, whereupon the officer spotted what he recognized as crack cocaine, ordered Newton to spit out the contents of his mouth, after which Newton was arrested. There was also testimony by Newton and one of the other men that when the officer approached them, he grabbed Newton by the collar, held his flashlight to Newton's face and ordered him to open his mouth.

The officer testified that appellee had previously been found to carry drugs in his mouth.

The trial judge concluded that, in the totality of the circumstances, what may have started as a consensual encounter turned into a seizure, because Newton would not have felt free to leave. A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress comes to the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the appellate court must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustain the trial court's ruling. McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1978).

Where evidence involved at the suppression hearing supports both a finding of a consensual encounter and a seizure and where the trial judge makes a factual finding that a reasonable person under the circumstances would not feel that he was free to go, the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence will be affirmed. See Hollinger v. State, 620 So.2d 1242 (Fla. 1993).

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and PETERSON, J.J., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Newton

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Aug 13, 1999
737 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
Case details for

State v. Newton

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. DERRICK LAVAR NEWTON, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Aug 13, 1999

Citations

737 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing Cases

State v. D.F.

Accordingly, based on its findings, the trial court correctly applied existing case law in concluding that…

Blake v. State

In some instances, however, if a spotlight or flashlight is utilized in conjunction with other actions by an…