R.J.C. v. State
84 So. 3d 1250, 2012 WL 1316175, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6042 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A police officer's repeated requests for an individual to remove their hands from their pockets can constitute a show of authority that transforms a consensual encounter into a Fourth Amendment seizure, which must be supported by reasonable suspicion.
Facts:
- An anonymous caller reported 'two suspicious black males in the area wearing all black' to the Broward County Sheriff's Office.
- A responding deputy observed the appellant, a juvenile wearing a black shirt and blue jeans, and another juvenile also wearing black.
- Upon making eye contact with the deputy, the two juveniles immediately went into a food store 'in a rush.'
- The deputy followed them into the store and approached the appellant, who had his hands in his pockets.
- The deputy asked the appellant to remove his hands from his pockets; the appellant gestured with one hand but kept the other in his pocket.
- The deputy again asked the appellant to remove his hands from his pockets, at which point the appellant put both hands back in his pockets.
- The deputy asked a third time for the appellant to remove his hands from his pockets, also asking, 'What do you have in your pockets? Do you have any guns, knives, weapons...?'
- In compliance with the final request, the appellant removed his hands, and a marijuana cigarette fell to the ground from his pocket.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant, a juvenile, was charged with possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis in the trial court.
- Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing it was obtained through an unlawful seizure.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress, ruling that the interaction was a consensual encounter.
- Appellant entered a plea of no contest, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
- Appellant was sentenced to time served.
- Appellant appealed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
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 a police officer's repeated request for an individual to remove their hands from their pockets convert a consensual encounter into a Fourth Amendment seizure requiring reasonable suspicion of criminal activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Taylor, J.
Yes. A consensual encounter is transformed into a seizure when a police officer's show of authority would convey to a reasonable person that they are not free to leave. In this case, the deputy's repeated requests for the appellant to remove his hands from his pockets, culminating in a question about weapons, constituted a command rather than a mere request. A reasonable person would not have felt free to disregard the officer and go about their business. The seizure was not justified because the officer lacked a well-founded, articulable suspicion of criminal activity; the anonymous tip was vague, uncorroborated, and did not allege illegal activity, and the appellant's subsequent actions did not create reasonable suspicion.
Dissenting - Gerber, J.
No. A police officer's request for a person to remove their hands from their pockets does not automatically convert a consensual encounter into a seizure, especially when made for officer safety. The 'totality of the circumstances' should be considered, and without other coercive factors such as the display of a weapon, physical touching, or a commanding tone of voice, such a request is inoffensive contact that does not restrict a person's freedom to leave. The trial court found the deputy did not convey a sense of command, and a reasonable person would understand the request was for safety, not a detention order. Therefore, no seizure occurred before the marijuana cigarette fell into plain view.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Fourth District's precedent that an officer's request to remove hands from pockets is a significant show of authority that implicates the Fourth Amendment. It highlights and deepens a split among Florida's appellate districts, as the Second and Fifth Districts have held that such a request for officer safety does not necessarily escalate a consensual encounter into a seizure. This conflict makes the legality of a common police practice dependent on geography within the state, increasing the likelihood that the Florida Supreme Court will eventually address the issue to establish a uniform standard.
Unlock the full brief for R.J.C. v. State