K.W. v. State
183 So. 3d 1123
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Deputies responded to an indecent-exposure complaint; they approached K.W., asked him to place his book bag on the ground, identified him, and issued a trespass warning; K.W. was told to leave the property.
- After the trespass warning, Deputy Garner asked to search the backpack; K.W. gave no verbal answer, stepped back, looked over his shoulder, and (per one deputy) "kind of shrugged."
- Garner then picked up and opened the bag, stating appreciation for K.W.’s consent, and discovered marijuana and a cigar altered to contain marijuana; K.W. was arrested and later charged.
- At the suppression hearing, deputies conceded no unequivocal verbal consent; they characterized K.W.’s silence/gestures as implied consent. K.W. denied consenting.
- The trial court denied suppression but did not rule on consent; instead it relied on two theories neither party advanced: (1) abandonment because K.W. stepped back from the bag, and (2) a search justified by officer safety.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, directing the trial court to enter a finding on whether K.W. gave unequivocal, voluntary consent; the appellate court rejected the trial court’s abandonment and officer-safety rationales.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (K.W.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether search was justified by voluntary consent | K.W.’s nonverbal conduct (stepping back, shrugging, failure to object) amounted to implied consent | K.W. never consented; silence and stepping back are not unequivocal consent | Remanded: trial court must make explicit factual/legal finding whether consent was unequivocal and voluntary; burden on State to prove consent |
| Whether search was justified by officer-safety | Search was reasonable as incident to officer safety after bag was placed on ground | No facts supported continued officer-safety concern after complaint was resolved | Rejected: no evidence officer-safety justified the search once exposure complaint was dispelled |
| Whether K.W. abandoned the backpack | State implicitly argued retrieval was permissible if property abandoned | K.W. placed bag on deputy request and stepping back was not an unequivocal abandonment | Rejected: insufficient clear, unequivocal evidence of abandonment; placing bag at officer request weighs against abandonment |
| Whether initial encounter was a seizure affecting consent analysis | State: encounter was consensual by deputy requests | K.W.: deputies exercised authority (questioning, trespass warning) and initially he was not free to leave | Court: factual findings on freedom to leave affect consent inquiry; remand required to resolve consent under totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Jorgenson v. State, 714 So.2d 423 (Florida 1998) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable absent exception)
- Ruiz v. State, 60 So.3d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (State bears burden to prove voluntariness of consent)
- G.M. v. State, 19 So.3d 973 (Fla. 2009) (distinguishing consensual encounters from seizures; freedom to leave is key)
- Thompson v. State, 555 So.2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (consent must be unequivocally given, not mere deference to police)
- Wynn v. State, 14 So.3d 1094 (Fla. 2009) (silence in response to search request does not establish unequivocal consent)
- State v. Oliver, 368 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (police may retrieve property voluntarily abandoned in public)
- Kelly v. State, 536 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (abandonment requires clear, unequivocal, decisive evidence)
- Luna-Martinez v. State, 984 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (mixed questions of law and fact on suppression reviewed with deference to trial court on historical facts)