G.M. v. State
2009 Fla. LEXIS 1711, 19 So. 3d 973, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 568 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The activation of police emergency lights is not a per se seizure under the Fourth Amendment but is one significant factor in a totality of the circumstances analysis. For a seizure to occur based on a show of authority, the subject must be aware of and submit to that show of authority.
Facts:
- Officers Smith and Cuenca, in an unmarked vehicle, were observing a public park known for past narcotics complaints.
- They saw several individuals, including G.M., standing near a parked Lexus vehicle.
- G.M. was observed on more than one occasion exiting the Lexus, speaking with the individuals, and re-entering the car.
- After observing for approximately fifteen minutes and seeing no criminal activity, the officers decided to approach the group.
- The officers activated their unmarked vehicle's emergency lights, drove across the street into the park, and parked about three feet behind the Lexus.
- Officer Smith approached the Lexus on foot and smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from a lowered window, while also observing smoke.
- Smith then looked in the window and saw G.M. in the back seat with what appeared to be marijuana and a 'blunt' on his lap.
- Upon seeing Officer Smith and after Smith identified himself as an officer, G.M. placed the marijuana in his mouth.
Procedural Posture:
- G.M. was charged with possession of marijuana in a juvenile proceeding.
- In the trial court, G.M. filed a motion to suppress the evidence, claiming it resulted from an illegal seizure.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress, ruling that the interaction was a consensual encounter.
- G.M. then pled no contest to the charge, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion.
- G.M. (appellant) appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal, with the State of Florida as appellee.
- The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion but certified its decision as being in direct conflict with decisions of other Florida appellate districts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the activation of police emergency lights constitute a per se seizure under the Fourth Amendment, or is it one factor in a totality of the circumstances analysis that also requires the subject to be aware of the police's show of authority?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, J.
No, the activation of police lights is not a per se seizure but is an important factor in a totality of the circumstances analysis, and a seizure requires that the subject be aware of and submit to the police's show of authority. The court rejects per se rules in Fourth Amendment seizure analyses, affirming the totality of the circumstances test from United States v. Mendenhall. Under California v. Hodari D., a seizure effected through a show of authority requires that the subject actually yield to that authority. Citing Yam Sang Kwai v. INS, the court holds there can be no seizure where the subject is unaware that he is being 'seized.' The evidence supports the conclusion that G.M. had his head down, was unaware of the emergency lights or the police presence until Officer Smith appeared at the car window. At that moment, Smith already possessed probable cause based on smelling and seeing the marijuana in plain view. Therefore, the seizure of G.M. occurred only after probable cause was established and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Pariente, J.
Yes, in part, and No, in part. The majority correctly holds that the activation of police lights is a significant factor in a totality of the circumstances analysis rather than a per se seizure. However, the majority errs in applying this principle by making a factual finding that G.M. was unaware of the police presence. The trial court never made this finding because it incorrectly ruled the stop was consensual. The State had the burden to demonstrate the reasonableness of the warrantless seizure, and the record is equivocal as to G.M.'s awareness. Without a definitive factual finding from the trial court on this critical issue, the appellate court should not affirm the denial of the suppression motion on this alternative ground.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that Florida follows the federal totality of the circumstances test for seizures and explicitly rejects a bright-line rule that activated police lights automatically constitute a seizure. More significantly, it establishes that a suspect's subjective awareness of the police's show of authority is a prerequisite for a seizure to occur. This adds a hurdle for defendants in suppression motions, as the prosecution can defeat a seizure claim by arguing the defendant was oblivious to police actions that would otherwise be considered a stop. It shifts a part of the Fourth Amendment inquiry from purely objective police conduct to the defendant's perception and submission.
