Police officer ordering defendant to “come here a minute”
was a stop and not a consensual encounter. Order granting motion to suppress
affirmed. State v. Macnider, No. CRC 05-46 APANO (
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING
AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
v. Appeal No. CRC 05-46 APANO
Opinion filed _____________________.
Appeal from a decision of the
County Judge Thomas Freeman
Della Jensen, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney
David Moran, Esq.
Assistant Public Defender
ORDER AND OPINION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the State’s appeal from a decision of the Pinellas County Court granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the decision of the trial court.
At approximately 11:30 at night, a police officer observed the defendant and two other individuals huddled behind a parked car. The officer was in his police cruiser. He then told the defendant to “come here for a minute.” The defendant complied and approached the officer. As the defendant approached the police cruiser, he threw away an object that he had in his hand. The officer retrieved the object, and the defendant was ultimately charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The defendant filed a motion to suppress that was granted by the trial court, and the State is appealing that decision.
“[A] trial court’s ruling on a motion to
suppress comes to the appellate court clothed with a presumption of
correctness, and the reviewing court must interpret the evidence and reasonable
inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to
sustaining the trial court’s ruling.” Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (
The State contends that the officer’s encounter with the defendant was consensual. It argues that the police may approach anyone on the street and ask to speak with them. It is then up to the individual to comply or not. The State contends that the officer in the case at bar merely asked the defendant to come to speak with him, and the defendant voluntarily complied.
The standard to
determine if the encounter was consensual or not is “whether a reasonable
person would believe he was free to leave.” See Popple v. State, 626
So.2d 185 (
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
AND ORDERED in Chambers at
J. Thomas McGrady
R. Timothy Peters
John A. Schaefer
cc: State Attorney