In the matter of Florida vs. Watana, the District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's order granting the defendant's motion to suppress evidence, ruling that the record gave support to the circuit court's conclusion that the defendant's purported consent to search wasn't voluntary.The facts of the case are as follows: At approximately 3 o'clock in the morning on the }date in question, a police sergeant stopped defendant for careless driving. According to the officer he observed, the defendant's vehicle traveling at speeds between 90 and 100 mph over a bridge. The officer also saw the defendant's vehicle crossing all traffic lanes. The defendant did not immediately pull over, but proceeded a small distance and then parked behind a closed business establishment. The officer stated that defendant's behavior was extremely unusual, because the defendant had ample places to pull over on 17th Street. As the defendant stayed in the driver's seat of the car, the officer asked the defendant to provide his drivers license and registration. Defendant was extremely nervous, and kept looking around & over his shoulder. The officer described him as being distracted as the police officer was talking to him, defendant was picking up items located in the vehicle that weren't related to the stop, & sweating profusely. The officer ordered the defendant out of the vehicle after witnessing this behavior. The officer claimed he asked for permission in order to search defendant's person, & that defendant complied, never resisting the officer or withdrawing consent. When asked whether or not he had articulable reasons to believe defendant had weapons, the police officer testified he just had a heightened suspicion.The officer put his hand inside of defendant's right front pocket & pulled out a small baggy containing a residual amount of cocaine. The defendant moved to suppress the cocaine, asserting in part that it was obtained during the course of an unlawful detention & that he did not consent to the police officer's request to search but, rather, acquiesced to the officer's authority.Defendant stated that he couldn't remember exactly how fast he was driving around the time of the stop, but that it wasn't 90 to 100 miles per hour. He was nervous when he saw the police officer behind his car since it was 3:00 a.m., & that he was out later than he told told his wife. Defendant looked for a safe spot to stop. When he saw the police officer coming towards his car, he rolled down his window. He provided the officer his license, registration, & proof of insurance, upon the officer's request. When the police officer returned to the defendant's vehicle shortly thereafter, he instructed defendant to step out of his car. Defendant complied. The defendant did not know he had the right to say no. The officer asked|instructed defendant to walk to the back of the police cruiser and turn to face the car. At that point, the officer started searching the defendant. Before that, the police officer never informed defendant what he was doing. Defendant thought the officer was going to give him a sobriety test. Defendant stated that the police officer did not ask for consent to search him.The trial court ruled that, although the defendant was lawfully stopped for speeding, he did not give the police officer permission to conduct a search of his person. The lower court found that any consent given was simply a submission to authority and not voluntary. The Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that the circuit court's finding that any consent was simply an involuntary submission to authority was supported by comptent and substantial evidence.For additional information on criminal attorney, dui lawyer & attorney please contact us at: The Law Offices of Rosenberg and Dye 201 S Biscayne BlvdMiami, FL 33131(305)459-3286