Dermio v. State, 112 So. 3d 551

Dermio was charged with armed trafficking in illegal drugs (four to fourteen grams), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver, possession of cannabis (under twenty grams), and possession of drug paraphernalia.
Dermio moved to suppress evidence obtained from an encounter with a Manatee County sheriff's deputy and from his confession; the motion was denied, and he pled no contest while reserving his right to appeal the denial.
In March 2010 a deputy found Dermio asleep in a running car with lights on in a bar parking lot around 3:30 a.m.; the deputy approached, activated emergency lights, and the car could not back out due to a barrier.
The deputy awakened Dermio, who appeared incoherent; after multiple requests to roll down the window, the deputy opened the car door and detected burnt marijuana odor; a firearm, marijuana, and other drugs were found during a subsequent search.
Dermio was transported to the sheriff's office, Mirandized, and gave incriminating statements during a later interview with a detective, which was not recorded.
The circuit court denied the suppression motion, accepted Dermio's no contest plea, and sentenced him to a ten-year minimum-mandatory term for armed trafficking, plus three years for the other drug offense and time served on remaining charges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there an unlawful search and seizure before the door was opened?	Dermio; suppression warranted for illegal seizure/entry.	Dermio; deputy's welfare check did not become an unlawful seizure.	No unlawful search or seizure; welfare check/police entry did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Was Dermio's confession subject to suppression, and was it preserved for appeal?	Dermio contends the confession should be suppressed or appealable.	State argues waiver/preservation issues bar review and confession was voluntary.	Confession issue was not dispositive on appeal; even if preserved, confession was voluntary.

Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (U.S. Supreme Court 1978) (emergency-entry exceptions and justification for warrantless searches)
Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185 (Fla.1993) (three levels of police-citizen encounters)
Greider v. State, 977 So.2d 792 (Fla.2d DCA 2008) (consensual welfare check can become an investigative stop depending on actions)
Luttrell v. State, 983 So.2d 1215 (Fla.5th DCA 2008) (consensual encounters at parked vehicle; not every contact is a seizure)
G.M. v. State, 19 So.3d 973 (Fla.2009) (emergency-entry and safety concerns as exceptions)
Parsons v. State, 825 So.2d 406 (Fla.2d DCA 2002) (exiting a vehicle can convert welfare checks into seizures; context matters)
Danielewicz v. State, 730 So.2d 363 (Fla.2d DCA 1999) (sleeping in car; safety considerations; corroborative authority)
England v. State, 46 So.3d 127 (Fla.2d DCA 2010) (dispositive nature of suppression orders and stipulations)
State v. Walter, 970 So.2d 848 (Fla.2d DCA 2007) (voluntariness of confessions where officer promises are limited)
Maqueira v. State, 588 So.2d 221 (Fla.1991) (non-promissory assurances do not render confessions involuntary)
Day v. State, 29 So.3d 1178 (Fla.4th DCA 2010) (promises of leniency and admissibility of statements)
Ramirez v. State, 15 So.3d 852 (Fla.1st DCA 2009) (leniency promises and voluntariness analysis)