Moore v. State, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14776

Deputy Hammack encountered Frank Moore at a laundromat/convenience store after the store owner asked that Moore be trespassed for loitering.
Hammack asked Moore to step to the front of the patrol car so he could issue a written trespass warning; Hammack told Moore he had "no choice" and that Moore could not be "on his way" until it was completed.
While completing the written warning, Hammack developed probable cause, searched Moore, and found a glass pipe and razor blades with cocaine residue; Moore was arrested for possession of cocaine and paraphernalia.
Moore moved to suppress the physical evidence and inculpatory statements, arguing they were obtained after an illegal detention to issue the written trespass warning.
The trial court found the encounter was consensual until probable cause arose and denied suppression; Moore pleaded no contest while reserving the right to appeal that ruling.
The Second District reversed, holding Hammack’s directive and statements converted the encounter into an unauthorized detention, requiring suppression and discharge.

Issue	Moore's Argument	Hammack/State's Argument	Held
Whether the officer’s request that Moore step to the patrol car and statements that he had “no choice” constituted a detention converting a consensual encounter into an unlawful stop	The deputy’s command and statements showed a show of authority that would make a reasonable person feel compelled to comply — an unlawful detention occurred	The interaction was a consensual encounter to issue a trespass warning; asking someone to stay to receive a written warning is permissible and does not by itself detain them	Court held the combination of directing Moore to the patrol car, telling him he had no choice, and saying he could not be on his way amounted to a detention; the detention was illegal
Whether evidence and inculpatory statements obtained after that detention should be suppressed	Evidence and statements were the fruit of an illegal detention and must be suppressed	Once probable cause developed (and officer safety justified action after Moore reached toward his pocket), evidence and statements were admissible	Because the detention was unlawful, the tangible evidence and statements discovered after the detention should have been suppressed; case reversed and remanded for discharge

Villanueva v. State, 189 So.3d 982 (Fla. 2d DCA) (deference to trial court factual findings; de novo review of law)
S.N.J. v. State, 17 So.3d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA) (trespass statute requires notice before guilt for trespass)
Gestewitz v. State, 34 So.3d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA) (officer may issue trespass warning but may not detain to issue written warning absent owner warning or reasonable suspicion)
Rodriguez v. State, 29 So.3d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA) (stop to issue trespass warning considered consensual unless converted to detention)
Rios v. State, 975 So.2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA) (show of authority that restrains movement converts encounter into investigatory stop)
Parsons v. State, 825 So.2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA) (reasonable-person test for whether officer’s show of authority effects a stop)
Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185 (Fla.) (consensual encounter becomes Terry stop when officer’s authority would lead reasonable person to conclude they are not free to leave)
A.L. v. State, 133 So.3d 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA) (agreeing with Popple/Smith standard on when consensual encounter becomes stop)
Smith v. State, 95 So.3d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA) (authority shows when reasonable person would not feel free to depart)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. Supreme Court) (officer’s subjective intent generally irrelevant to Fourth Amendment analysis)