by Brian S. Batterton
Golphin v. Florida, No. SC03-554 (December
14, 2006)
The Supreme Court of Florida recently decided
an important case regarding consensual encounters. In Golphin
v. Florida, 1 two police officers were on patrol
in an area of Daytona Beach that is known for prostitution
and narcotics
traffic. The police officers were specifically in that area
to conduct field interviews with individuals in that area.
The officers observed a group of approximately five males
standing on a street corner and intended to speak with them.
The officers parked their police vehicle on the opposite
side of the street and walked across the street toward the
males. As the officers approached, some of the males left
the area; however, Golphin remained and never attempted
to leave the area. One officer approached Golphin and requested
his identification, which he voluntarily provided. This
officer received Golphin’s ID, conducted an NCIC check
for warrants, and retained the ID while waiting on the results
of the warrant check. During this time, although the officer
retained Golphin’s ID, the officer did not walk away
with the ID. While they were awaiting the results of the
warrant check, Golphin told the officer that he may have
an open warrant for his arrest. Also during this time, a
K-9 officer also arrived on the scene. Golphin was indeed
correct as a warrant for his arrest was confirmed. A search
incident to his arrest revealed illegal drugs and paraphernalia
for which he was also charged.
Golphin argued that the arrest
was the result of an unlawful seizure of his person, in
that although the encounter was
initially consensual, the officer transformed the encounter
into a detention without reasonable suspicion by retaining
his ID during the warrant check. The trial court refused
to suppress the evidence and the Court of Appeals upheld
the trial court. The case then went to the Supreme Court
of Florida.
The Court, in this case, agreed that the
encounter should be governed by the “totality of the
circumstances” test
used by the U.S. Supreme Court in Florida v. Bostick.
2 The Court then discussed three relevant rules established
by the U.S. Supreme Court. First, “only when the
officer, by means of physical force or show of authority,
has in
some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude
that a ‘seizure’ has occurred.” 3 Second,
police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s
prohibition against unreasonable seizures merely by approaching
individuals on the street and asking questions, if they
are willing to listen. 4 Third, the question of whether
or not a person has been “seized” for Fourth
Amendment purposes will be judged in accordance with the “reasonable
person” standard. 5 The U.S. Supreme Court further
stated:
We conclude that a person has been “seized” within
the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of
all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable
person would have believed that he was not free to leave.
Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure,
even where the person did not attempt to leave, would
be the threatening presence of several officers, the display
of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the
person of the citizen, or the use of threatening language
or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s
request might be compelled. In the absence of some such
evidence, otherwise inoffensive contact between a member
of the public and the police cannot, as a matter of
law, amount to a seizure of that person. 6
Additionally,
the Supreme Court of Florida cited a case
from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals where an officer
retained a pedestrian’s ID and asked for consent to
search his vehicle which was parked in a parking lot. 7
The 11th Circuit found that De La Rosa, a pedestrian at
his apartment complex at the time of the encounter, had
not been seized by the retention of his ID during the consensual
encounter and that he could have terminated the encounter
without his ID by walking into his apartment. 8 It was noted
that this is a fact specific determination and a person
may not feel free to leave his ID with the police in every
circumstance. For example, a person who is about to purchase
a bus ticket and leave on a bus or enter a car to depart
a location would not “reasonably” feel free
to terminate an encounter without his ID. 9
The Supreme Court
of Florida also cited a case where the manner in which
the warrant check was performed was a relevant
factor in determining whether the retention of a person’s
ID during a consensual encounter transformed the encounter
into a detention. In U.S. v. Analla, 10 the police approached
a man, asked to speak with him and requested his driver’s
license and registration (he was on a pay phone outside
of his vehicle). 11 Upon receipt of the documents, one officer
radioed an NCIC warrant check using his portable radio and
retained the documents while waiting for the results. 12
This officer stood near Analla and his car and did not walk
back to the patrol vehicle to conduct the warrant check.
13 The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that it was reasonable
for the officer to retain the ID and registration for a
short time while awaiting the dispatcher’s check
of the documents. It was important in the courts analysis
that
the officer stood near Analla in a position where Analla
could have requested the return of his documents so that
he could leave. 14
Thus, the Florida Supreme Court held,
in Golphin, that based upon the totality of the circumstances,
Golphin’s
encounter with the police was consensual and did not mature
into a seizure simply because the officer retained his ID
during a warrant check. 15 The relevant factors that the
Court considered were as follows: the officers approached
the group of males in a casual manner without sirens, lights,
or weapons drawn and did not block the path of males (some
actually departed the scene and were allowed to do so);
one officer initially approached Golphin and requested ID;
the officer spoke to Golphin in a casual and polite manner;
Golphin was cooperative throughout the encounter; the evidence
was obtained during a search incident to the arrest; Golphin
was not driving or attempting to depart in a vehicle; he
was not isolated or moved by the officers; no indication
was communicated that Golphin was not free to go; and the
officer conducting the warrant check remained in Golphin’s
immediate vicinity and conversed with him during the check,
thus Golphin was in a position to request the return of
his ID. 16 The Court also noted that Golphin’s ID
was not retained during a consent search; this factor would
weigh heavily in determining that the encounter and resulting
consent was not consensual. 17
In conclusion, the Court stated that they
are not making a steadfast rule that all situations where
ID is retained
during a consensual encounter will be permissible. 18
This will be judged based upon the totality of the circumstances.
The Court also noted that there are other jurisdictions
that have held that retaining a person’s ID for the
purpose of a warrant check during a consensual encounter
constitutes a seizure of the person. 19 Therefore, if an
officer is unsure as to how his particular jurisdiction
would rule in a situation such as this, the officer should
contact his department legal advisor or local prosecutor.
Citations:
- Golphin v. Florida, No. SC03-554 (December
14, 2006)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 at n.16 (1968)
- U.S. v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 200 (2002)
- U.S. v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 554,555 (1980)
- Id.
- U.S. v. De La Rosa, 922 F.2d 675 (11th Cir. 1991)
- Id. at 678 n.2
- U.S. v. Jordan, 958 F.2d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
- 975 F.2d 119 (4th Cir. 1992)
- Id. at 122.
- Id.
- Id at 124.
- Id.
- Golphin at 24.
- Id.
- Id.
- Id. at 27.
- State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420 (Tenn. 2000); Piggot
v. Commonwealth, 537 S.E.2d 618, 619 (Va. Ct. App. 2000);
State
v. Thomas, 955 P.2d 420 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
|
Pre-Orders being taken, allow 1 to 2 weeks
for delivery (as of July 3, 2007)
This PATC Best-Selling guide is arranged
by topic in accordance with the recurring tasks that law enforcement
officers are called upon to respond to. This guidebook will assist
officers in preparing for critical tasks as well as provide a checklist
of the necessary elements to support officer conduct. Supervisors can
utilize the guidebook to review officer actions to determine its consistency
with the law as interpreted by the US Supreme Court as well as the
developing trends in the US Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Details & Ordering
Information
...before ordering this item...
Get the Legal Guide for Law Enforcement, as
well as all 10 Quick-Reference Checklists for only $30.00!
DETAILS
|