CHIEF JUSTICE: JUST WAITA MINUTE UNTIL THE H USTLE AND BU STLE DIES DOWN. YOU MAY START.

GOOD MORNING. M AY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MONIQUE L'ITALIEN FOR THE PETITIONER IN THIS MATTER.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT.

I AM SORRY. THIS CASE BEGAN ONE EVENING IN JANUARY WHEN THREE DETECTIVES WERE ON GEN ERAL PATROL IN AN UNMARKED PO LICE CAR IN AN AREA O F TA MARAC , FLORIDA. THE DETECTIVES EN TERED APARKING LOT AFTER APARTMENT COMPLEX , AND AS THEY -- PARKING LOT OF AN APARTMENT COMPLEX , AND AS THEY DID SO , THEY PARKED THE CA R AND E AC H DETECTIVE EXITED THE CAR AND WENT ON TO ADDRESS INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS , AND SPECIFICALLY IN THIS CASE DETECTIVE CATALANO WALKED UPTO THE CAR OF MR . CAMPBELL , TAPPED ON THE WINDOW AND PROCEEDED TO ASK HIM , MR . CAMPBELL ROLLED DOW N THE WINDOW.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT ISTHE TESTIMONY AS TO WHY HE WALKED UP TO THIS PARTICULAR VEHICLE.

NO PARTICULAR REASON AT ALL. DETECTIVE CATALANO SIMPLY SAID THEY SAW THE CAR WAS PARKED THERE.

WHAT TIME OF THE DAY WAS IT AGAIN?

AROUND 7:00 P .M. .

JUSTICE: AND WHAT MO NTH OF THE YEAR?

I BELIEVE 2004 IS THE YEAR .

JUSTICE: NOW , THEDAYLIGHT OR THE DARK?

EX ACTLY IN JA NUARY , 7:00 P.M. WOULD PROB ABLY BE DARK.

JUSTICE: THE TRIAL COURTFOUND THAT THE ORIGINAL ST OP WAS CONS ENTUAL .

YES , YOUR HONO R. THE TRIAL COURT DID DETERMINE.

JUSTICE: AND THAT THE TRIAL COURT , ALSO, FOUND THAT THE COURT DOES FIND THAT THE OF FICERS DIDNOTHING IMPROPER .

CORRECT. YES. F ROM HIS PERSPECTIVE , THE FACTS AS HE HEARD THEM THERE WAS NO DET ENTION.

JUSTICE: RIGHT. NOW , WHAT DID OCCUR , HOWEVER, IN THIS INST ANCE , WAS THAT THE TRIAL COURT SUPPRESSED THE FILE.

HE DID THAT , Y OUR HONOR.

JUSTICE: AND HE DID THAT ON WHAT BASIS?

AT THE TIME THE TRIALCOURT HAD THIS CASE , THIS COURT HAD NOT BEEN HEARD BY US. SO AT T HE TIME THE TRIAL COURT ONLY HAD BA EZ ONE AND PERKO ON APP EAL. SO AT THAT TIME R UNNING A WARRANTS CH ECK WASCONSIDERED TO BE DETENTIONAT THAT TIME. THIS COURT PROCEEDED TO HAEFER TO HEAR BY AS - - TO HEAR BAEZ TWO , WHICH IS T AKING THE D RIVERS LICENSE AND RU NNING A WARRANTS CHECK DID NOT AM OUNT TO DETENTION.

JUSTICE: EXCUSE ME.I BELIEVE THAT THE BAEZ DECISION OUT OF THIS COURTTALKED IN TERMS OF THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND DID NOTDRAW A BRIGHT-LINE RULE , DID IT?

NO , YOUR HONOR. YOU ARE CORRECT AND AT SOME POINT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS A LI TTLE BIT ABOUT HOW WE WOULD LIKE THIS CASE TO SE RVE AS POSSIBLE FOR THIS COURT TO CLARIFY SOM E OF THE LANGUAGE OF BAEZ. THIS CASE REALLY PRESENTS A G REAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: AS FAR AS WHAT THE PARAMETERS ARE IN B AEZ , THIS , THE SUPREME COURT'S OP INION IN BAEZ , THERE WAS SOME THING AKIN TO REASONABLE SUSP ICION THAT WAS DISCUSSED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

EXACTLY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU ARE AGREEING THAT IN THIS CASE WE DON'T HAVE THE ISSUE OF REASONABLE SUSP ICION.

ABSOLUTELY. P URELY CONSENTUAL ENCOUNTER.

JUSTICE: NOW, HAD THE , PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT THE OFFICERS ASKED FOR THEIR , FOR THE RIGHT TO DO THE SEARCH , HAD THE COMPUTER C HECK BEEN COMPLETEED?

THE TESTIMONY FROM BOTH DETECTIVES AT THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS HEARING STAYS THE WARRANTS CHECK WAS ON GOING AT THE TIME THAT DETECTIVE CATALANO ASKED MR . CAMPBELL IF HE COULD SE ARCH HIS CAR.

JUSTICE: AND THAT T O OK A BOUT 3-TO -7 MINUTES?

DETECTIVE CATA LANO G AV E THREE ANSWERS AND APPARENTLY SETTLED ON 3-TO-5.

IT WAS WITHIN THE 3- TO-5 MINUTES THAT HE ASKED IF HE COULD SEARCH THE CAR?

YES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO ARE YOUSAYING THAT THE FOURTH DISTRICT OPINION, AND BECAUSE THE FOURTH DI STRICT OPINION SAID THAT THE CHECK CAME BACK CLEAN, BUT INSTEAD OF RETU RNING HIS LICENSE AND CONCLUDING THE ENCOUNTER , ONE OF THE DETECTIVES ASKED WHETHER CA MPBELL HAD ANY GUNS OR DRUGS. REPLIED NO. THEN WITHOUT FI RST RETURNING THE LICENSE ASKED FOR CONSENT TO SEARCH. ARE YOU SA YING THAT IS AN INCORRECT STATEMENT OF THEFACTS AS FOUND BY THE TRIAL JUDGE?

YES, IT IS. YES, IT IS. BOTH DETECTIVE CATALANO AND DETECTIVE WHITE ON DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION AT THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS WERE VERY CLEAR. THE WARRANTS CHECK WASONGOING.

JUSTICE: AND THE DEFENDANT DID NOT TESTIFY , CORRECT?

NO , THE DEFENDANT DID NOT TESTIFY.

JUSTICE: SO THAT TESTIMONY WAS UNDISPUTEED?

YES.

JUSTICE: AND WHAT DID THE TRIAL COURT FIND? DID THE TRIAL COURT FIND THAT THE WAR RANT CHECK HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETEED?

THAT IS A BIT AFTER PROBLEM BECAUSE THE RA DIO TRIAL COURT , BEC AUSE IT BASED ITS RULING ON BAEZ , DIDN'T TAKE THAT NEXT STEP. IT DIDN'T SE EM TO NEED TO ADDRESS WHETHER THE WARRANTS CHECK WAS ONGOING , BECAUSEAT THE TIME BAEZ ONE SAID THEY COULDN'T STOP. THEY COULDN'T DO THE WARRANTS CHECK.

JUSTICE: SO THERE IS NO FINDING , ONE WAY OR THE O THER.

NO.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I GUESS ITHOUGHT YOU HAD SAID THAT IT WAS UNDISPUTED THAT IT WAS ONGOING.

WELL , ACCORDING TO THE DETECTIVE , AND I BELIEVE THAT MR . CAMPBELL DOE SN'T DIS PUTE THAT, EITHER, THAT THE WARRANTS CHECK WAS ONGOING.THE TRIAL COURT DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY --

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHERE DID THE FOURTH DISTRICT GE T THAT STATEMENT?

I AM AF RAID I DON'T KNOW,YOUR HONOR. SO AT THE TIME THE WARRANTS CHE CK WAS ONGOING --

CHIEF JUSTICE: LET ME ASK YOU IS IT CRITICAL IN THIS CASE TO KNOW IF , BECAUSE HE CONSENTED TO, IN THIS CASE , UNLIKE BAEZ AND UNLIKE SOMEOF THE OTHER CASES LIKE GOLF I KNOW , HE -- LIKE GOLPHIN , HE TOLD HIM THEY WERE GOING TO RUN A WARRANTS CHECK ANDHE CONSENTED TO THAT.

YES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IT CRITICAL AS TO THE CONSENT , AS TO WHETHER THE WARRANTS CHECK WAS FINISHED AT THE TIME THAT THEY ASKED WHETHERTHEY CAN SEARCH HIS VEHICLEOR DOES IT MA TTER AT ALL?

WE BELIEVE IT REALLY DOES NOT MATTER.

CHIEF JUSTICE: DOES NOT M ATTER.

NO.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES IS RETAINING SOMEONE'S LICENSE AFTER IT HAS BEEN VOLUNTARILY GI VEN FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSE, CONSTITUTION AN UNLAWFUL SEIZURE.

WELL , YOUR HONOR , LET ME REPHRASE. IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED MATERIAL AND IT SHOULD BE A FACTOR, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE DISPOSITIVE , AND I THIN K IF WE LOOK BACK TO THE UN ITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASESSUCH AS BO SSTIC AND ROYER WHERE THEY DISCUSS DID THE OFFICERS RETAIN --

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE POINT WHERE THEY HAD HIS LICENSE IN T HIS CASE? WHERE WERE THE OTHEROFFICERS?

AT THE POINT WHERE THE WARRANTS CHECK WAS ONGOING , THE OF FICERS WERE ON THE PASSENGER SIDE .

CHIEF JUSTICE: SURROUNDING THIS VEH ICLE ?

GUNS WERE H E LLS TORE TE R ED. -- GUNS WERE HOLSTER ED . IT I S DIS PUTED WHETHER THEY WERE SURROUNDING THE VEHICLE , BECAUSE DETECTIVE CAR TER WAS BEHIND THE CAR AND THEY SAY HE WAS ON A GRASSY AREA BEHIND A TREE, SO WITH A CAR BACKED INTO A SP AC E , BOTH SIDES COULD AR GU E HOW CL OSE DETECTIVE CARTER WAS TO THE CAR AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS ACTUALLY AWARE OF DETECTIVE CARTER.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THERE WERE T WO VEHI CLES , AT SEVEN O'CLOCK THERE WERE TWO SMALLCHILDREN IN THE CAR?

TWO CHILDR EN. WE ARE NOT TOLD THEIR A GES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO SMALL CHILDREN, AGAIN, F ROM THE FOURTH DISTRI CT'S OPIN ION IS JUST OUT OF NO WHERE ?

NO. I AM SAY ING THERE WERE TWOCHILDREN IN THE CAR. I DON'T KNOW THEIR AGES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I THOUGHTTHE COURT SAID SMALL CHILDREN. IT COULD AF FECT THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES , IF SOMEONE IS THERE WAITING FORTHE MOTHER. NOW THERE IS DETECTIVE S SURROUNDING THIS VEHICLE. THEY HAVE TA KEN HIS LICENSE , AND HOW IS, I GUESS , A REASONABLE PERSON TO THINK THAT NOW THEY ARE FREE TO LEAVE?

WELL , THE REASONABLE PERSON TEST IS OBJECTIVE NOT SUBJECTIVE. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER --

CHIEF JUSTICE: IT IS OBJECTIVE. THAT IS WHAT I A M ASKING. OBJECTIVELY HOW WOULD A REASONABLE PERSON THINK THAT THEY ARE FREE TO LE AVE, WHEN THERE ARE THREE OFFICERS --

FREE TO SAY NO. MR . CAM PBELL WAS FREE TO SAY NO. MR . CAMPBELL WAS FREE TO SAY, NO , I DON'T WANT TO TALK TO YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IS THAT THEORETIC CAL LY?

I BELIEVE THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW IS MR WASFREE TO S AY NO TO THE ENCOUNTER , FREE TO SAY NO TO HANDING OVER HIS DR IVERS LICENSE.MR. CAMPBELL WAS FREE TO SAY NO , I DON'T WANT YOU RUNNING A WARRANTS CHECK ON ME . MR . CAMPBELL WAS FREE TO SAY NO TO THE SEARCH . AND IN THIS CASE H E ULTIMATELY SAID HE COULDN'T REMEMBER HE HAD A GUN IN THE CAR.

JUSTICE: LET ME GET BACK TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE WARRANTS CHECK WAS COMP LETED . IT SEEMS LIKE THER E IS A DISPUTE AMONG THE CASES AS TO WHETHER WHEN SOMEONE ASKS IF THEY CAN SEE YOUR DRIVERS LICENSE AND YOU CONSENT TO THAT, WHETHER THE CONSENT TO LOOKING AT THE DRIVERS LICENSE ALSO INCLUDES A CONSENT TO RUN A WARRANTS CHECK, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT IS UNDISPUTED AMONG THE CASES THAT ONCE THE WARRANTS CHECK IS COMPLETED, CERTAINLY AT THAT TIME THE DEFENDANT SHOULD GET HIS LICENSE BACK.THERE IS NO REASON TO K EEP THE LICENSE , ONCE A WARRANTS CHECK IS COMPLETED .

YOU ARE RIGHT. THERE IS NO REASON TO KEEP THE LICENSE, BU T THE POINTTHAT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE IS LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A N OFFICER , I BELIEVE ECLIPSE IT TO HIS BELT. AN OFFICER FOR GET. THEY BECOME SIDETRACKED ANDFORGET. HE PUTS IT ON HIS D ASH BOARD.

IF THE CONSENT TO SEE THE LICENSE INCLUDES A CONSENT TO RUN A WARRANTS CHECK , I DON'T THINK THE CASES SAY IT INCLUDES A CONSENT TO RUN A WARRANTS CHECK AND TO KEEP IT FOR AS LONG AS YOU WANT UNTIL YOU DECIDE TO GIVE IT BACK TO ME.

NO. BUT WHAT IT DOES INCL UDE IS THE PERSON CAN END THE ENCOUNTER. I BELIEVE THAT I S THE POINT . THE PERSON AT A NY POINT CAN S AY, YOU KNOW WHAT? NO. I AM AF RAID SOMETHING MIGHT COME BACK ON MY WARRANTS CHECK SO I DON'T WANT T O CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION.I AM GOING TO BE ON MY WAY AND END IT. I AM GOING TO ROLL UP MY WINDOW. LEAVE ME A L ONE.

JUSTICE: ONCE THEWARRANTS CHECK IS COMPLETED, WHAT IS THE REASONABLE BASISFOR THE POLICE OFFICER TO RETAIN THE LICENSE?

THERE WAS NO PARTICULAR BASIS FOR RETA INING IT.

JUSTICE: I UNDERSTANDTHAT YOU ARE SAYING THAT IN THIS CASE THE WARRANTS CHECK HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED. BUT YOU ALSO SAID THAT IT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE CASE , ANDI THINK THAT IT MAY VERY WELL MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LEGAL AND ILLEGAL DETENTION.

WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING IS IT IS JUST TO BE CONSIDERED A FACTOR. WE DON'T WANT THIS COURT TO COME BACK AND SAY SI MPLY BECAUSE AN OFFICER RETAINED THAT DRIVERS LICENSE, THAT SUDDENLY THAT BECO ME S DETENTION IN AND OF ITSELF , BECAUSE THE CIRCUMSTANCES --

JUSTICE: IF YOU YOU LOOK AT BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL CASES, THAT ONCE THE PURPOSE OF TA LKING WITH THE INDIVIDUAL OR HAVING SOMETHING , INTERACTION WITH THE INDIVIDUAL IS COMPLETED, AS JUSTICE CANTERO SAID, SUCH AS DETERMINING THAT THE TEMPORARY LICENSE TAG IS V ALID, FLORIDA CASE DI RECTLY ON POINT , FEDERAL CASES , ONCE WE TALK WITH AN INDIVIDUAL, WE KEEP THEIR AIRLINE TICKET AND IDENTIFICATION THAT CHANGESTHE DYNAMICS . IF WE GIVE THE TIC KET ANDTHE IDENTIFICATION BACK , THAT IS A DIF FERENT SCENARIO, SO WH Y IS IT NOT CRITICAL? IT IS ALMOST A BRIGHT LI NETHAT, ONCE YOU FIN ISH THAT CONSENTUAL EN COUNTER , IF YOU MAINTAIN AND KEEP FOR NO REASON, NO REASON ABLE BASIS TO CONTINUE, THAT IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE IT IS A BRIGHT LINE. WHY ARE TH OSE CASES NOT A BRIGHT LINE , AT LEAST AT THAT POINT?

BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE CASES WHEN THEY DISCUSS, WHETHER IT WAS THE AIRLINE TICK ET AND THE LICENSE RETAINED , WE DISCUSSIT IN TERMS OF THOSE FACTORS.DID THEY RETAIN IT? WAS IT INTIMIDATION ? DID THEY TO UCH THEDEFENDANT?AND IN ROYER THEY TOOK HIS LUGGAGE . THEY HAD HIS AIRLINE TICKET AND HIS LICENSE , BUT THEY A LSO TOOK HIS LUGGAGE , ANDMR. ROYER TEST IFIED, AND ITHINK THAT IS THE WH OLE POINT IS WE DON'T WANT ABRIGHT-LINE RULE TO SAY SIMPLY BECAUSE A DRIVERS LICENSE IS RETAINED, THAT THAT TURNS IT INTO A DETENTION.

JUSTICE: WHY DO WE NOT? FOR EXAM PLE THE OTHER F LORIDA CASE STOPPING FO LKS R ANDOM LY BECAUSE YOU CANNOT CLEARLY SEE THE TEMPORARYTAG BUT ONCE YOU APPROACH THE VEHICLE AND YOU MAKE CERTAIN THAT THAT TAG IS VALID AND THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM TO CONTINUE FURTHER AND TO MA INTAIN AND KEEP THEPERSON AT THE SCENE , IT I S TANTAMOUNT TO A SEIZURE. WE KNOW A STOP IS A JEEZ YOUR.

BUT THAT WAS -- IS A SEIZURE.

BUT YOUR HON OR, THAT WAS A STOP . IT IS TANTAMOUNT , AND WHEN THERE IS A STOP , YOU CAN ONLY CONTINUE THE STOP IN THE REALM OF WHAT IT WAS FOR, AND WHEN THE OFFICER REALIZED THERE WAS NOTHINGWRONG WITH THAT TAG , LET M E BEGIN BEGIN AG AIN. AT THAT POINT THE PERSON I S DETAINED BECAUSE THERE IS ASTOP. IN THIS CASE IT IS CONSENTUAL. THERE IS NO STOP, AND FR OMTHE BEGINNING WE ARE SAYING --

JUSTICE: DON'T THE CASES L OOK AT FOR EX AMPLE THE FEDERAL CASES , IF YOU ARE IN THE VEHICLE AND YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAVE, MAINTAINING OF THE DRIVERS LICENSE, IS THAT YOU CANNOT LEAVE BECAUSE IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW , WHEREAS IF I AM OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND WALKING TO MY HO ME, I AM NO LONGER IN THE VEHICLE , AND THAT IS NOT, SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE LICENSE IS A CRI TICAL FACTOR, DEPENDING U PON WHERETHE INDIVIDUAL IS LO CATED AND WHAT THAT INDIVIDUAL MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO?

JUSTICE LE WIS YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THAT IS THE POINT IS THE CRITICAL FACTOR, AND IT IS MATERIAL BUT NOT DISPOSITIVE , AND THAT IS ALL WE ARE TRYING TO SAY. WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING TO THROW IT OUT THE WINDOW.IT IS JUST A MATERIAL FACTOR.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT WOULDYOU THEN GO TO , THAT , IF ONE , IT IS MATERIAL , AND IT IS CRITICAL , AND THE OTHER ISSUES , WAS WHAT ELSE DID YOU LOOK AT THEN, IN T ERMS OF WHETHER IT IS A VOLUNTARY CONSENT OR NOT .

I BELIEVE WE DON'T HAVE A DELINEATED LIST BUT W E CONSIDER SOME OF THE M ORE GENERAL ARE THE OFFICERS IN UNIFORM OR PLAIN CL OTHES ? HAVE THE OFFICERS UNHOLSTERED THEIR GUNS OR ARE THE GUNS HOLSTERED? HAVE THEY GRABBED ANYTHING LIKE IN ROYER WHERE THEY TOOK HIS LU GGAGE . SOME COURTS, I BELIEVE THE FEDERAL DOES CONSIDER THE SEX, THE AGE.

JUSTICE: HOW ABOUT THEFACT THAT THEY PRETTY MUCH SURROUNDED THE CAR. YOU HAVE AN OFFICER ON ONE SIDE AND AN OFFICER ON THE O THER AND AN OFFICER BE HINDTHE CAR OR IN FRONT OF THECAR.D O YOU LOOK AT THAT?

Y ES. ABSOLUTELY, JUSTICE QUINCE.

JUSTICE: WAS THAT A FACTOR IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE? I MEAN WE HAD THREE OFFICERS THAT PRETTY MUCH SURROUNDED THE VEHICLE . AN INNOCENT PERSON, WHICH IS THE STANDARD WE HAVE TO APPLY.

YES.

JUSTICE: EVEN AN INNOCENT PERSON UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES ,, YOU BELIEVE, HONESTLY BELIEVE THA T THEY FELT FREE TO LEAVE AND ASK THE OFFICER GIVE ME BACK M Y LICENSE.I DON'T WANT TO COOPERATE ANYMORE ?

WELL , I BELIEVE FI RST STATE HAS SAID WE DON'T ENTIRELY AG REE THAT THIS CAR WAS SURROUNDED , BUT EVEN ASSUMING THAT YOU HAVE THREEOFFICERS, SO SO FAR IT LOOKS , WE HAVE TWO FACTORS THEN. THE OFFICERS AROUND THE CAR AND RETENT ION OF THE DRIVERS LICENSE, S O THE ONLY TWO FACTORS THAT WE HAVE IN AN OTHERWISE CONSENTUAL ENCOUNTER H ERE.

JUSTICE: BUT IN THAT K IND OF SITUATION WHEN YOU HAVE THAT KIND OF SHOW OF FORCE , AND YOU NEED THE OFFICER TO ACT AND B E INTIMIDATING , PULL THEIR GUNS --

YOU NE ED THE OFFICERS TO PULL THEIR GUNS?

JUSTICE: ONE OF THE FACTORS YOU SAY IS WHETHERTHEY PULLED THE WEAPON AND THOSE KIND S OF THIN GS. DO YOU REALLY NEED THAT IN O RDER TO BE INTIMIDATING IT TO A CITI ZEN , WH EN YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF OFFICERS WHOHAVE PRETTY MUCH SURR OUNDED YOU AND HAVE YOUR DRIVERS LICENSE.

IT JUST GOES INTO THE TOTALITY, YOUR HONOR. IT DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I CANNOT , AND AGAIN WE ARE IN THEUNITED STATES OF AMERICA , AND WHATEVER THIS COURTDECIDES , THAT AN A VERAGE CITIZEN SIT TING IN A VEHICLE W ITH TWO YOUNG CHILDREN. THERE ARE THREE OFFICERS WITH GUNS.THEY HAVE HIS LICENSE. HOW THAT IS NOT A SHOW OF AUTHORITY, AND SOMEBODY WOULD SAY I AM FREE TO LEAVE, WHEN THERE ARE THREEOFFICERS SURROUNDING THEVEHICLE.

YOUR HONOR, I JUST HAVE TO G O BACK TO WHAT OUR UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS SAID. I MEAN W E HAVE TO LOOK AT MEND EN HALL , A 22-YEAR-OLD , I BELIEVE NOT EVEN HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATED YOUNG W O MAN TRAVELING ALONE IN AN AIRPORT , IS ASKED TO ACCOMPANY THE DETECTIVE , NARCOTICS OFFICERS , TO A R OOM SEPARATE FROM THEAIRPORT , AND OUR SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT THAT WAS NOT A DETE NTION.

JUSTICE: BUT THEY HADGIVEN HER BACK HER TICKET AND HER IDENTIFICATION.

AND THAT WAS A FACTOR .

JUSTICE: AT THE POINT THAT THEY ASKED HER WOULD YOU ACCOMPANY US, SHE HAD HER DOCUM ENTS.

THEY HAD RETURNED THE DOCUMENTS WHEN SHE WAS ASKED TO AC COMPANY THEM.

CHIEF JUSTICE: DO YOU WANT TO SAVE SOME TIME FOR REBUTTAL?

JUSTICE: COULD YOU ADDRESS THE CH ANGE OF FACTS. WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING ON THE OP INION , CERTAINLY FROM THE FOURTH DISTRICT WITH REGARD TO A VE RY MATERIAL FACT. IS THE RECORD CLEAR WITH REGARD TO HOW THE WARRANTCHECK HAD BEEN CONDUCTED? THEY TAKE THE LICENSE BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL? THEY DO IT RIGHT STAN DING BY THE CAR. IS THAT CLEAR FROM THIS RECORD?

THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY , YOUR HONOR, IS DETECTIVE CATALANO SAID I WE NT TO THE TELETYPE, AND SAYING I WENT TO THE TELETYPE , WOULDINDICATE THAT HE SE EMED TO GO TO HIS CAR, AND THEN HE S AID , HEY , WH ILE YOUR WARRANTS CHECK IS ONG OING , DO YOU MIND IF I SEARCH YOUR CAR , WHI LE I AM R UNNING YOUR WARRANTS CHECK, SO HE WENT TO THE TEL ETYPE . THANK YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: MR . HAL PERN.

GOOD MORNING AND MAY IT PLEASE THE COUR T. MY NAME IS SAM HA LPERN . I REPRESENT THE RESPONDENT G REG CAMPBELL. I WOULD LIKE TO INITIALLY JUST CL EAR UP THE IS SUES THAT I THINK THE COURT MAY BE HAVING SOME PROBLEMS WITH FACTUALLY. AS PAGE 2 1 OF THE RECORD IT DOES INDICATE THAT THERE WERE TWO S MALL CHILDREN IN THE CAR. ON PAGE 33 OF THE RECORD , IT INDICATES CLEARLY THAT WHILE THE TELE TYPE WAS IN PROGRESS , DETECTIVE CA TALANO DID IN FACT ASK THEN FOR THE CONSENT.

JUSTICE: SO YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THE STATE THAT THE WARRANTS CHECK WAS NOT OVER, AT THE TIME THAT THE OFFICER ASKED TO SEARCH THECAR.

ABSOLUTEL Y.THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE RECORD SHOWS THAT .

JUSTICE: SHOULDN'T THAT MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE IN THIS CASE, IF THE OFFICER HAD COMPLETED THE WARRANTS CHECK AND RETAINED THE DRIVERS LICENSE AND ASKEDFOR THE SEARCH , WOULDN'TTHAT BE A DIF FERENT SCENARIO F ROM WHAT WE HAVE HERE , WITH THE WARRANTS CHECK ONGOING AND YOU ASKED FOR PERMISSION TO SEARCH THE VE HICLE.

I RE ALLY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT IS OF ANY MO MENT WHATSOEVER, WHETHER THE WARRANTS CHECK HAD BEEN COMPLETED OR NOT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT HE GAVE CONSENT FOR THE WARRANTS CHECK.

WELL, THAT IS A ISS UE I THINK FOR THE COURT TO DETERMINE, BUT BE FORE WE GET INTO THAT ISSUE, I WOULD A LIKE TO JUST A DDRESS JUSTICE QUINCE ON THE MATTER CONCERNING WHETHER IT IS OF RELEVANCE I, BECAUSE I THINK A NUMBER OF JUST -- RELEVANCY, BECAUSE I THINK ANUMBER OF JUSTICES HERE HAVE INQUIRED AB OUT. THAT ONE , DETECTIVE CATALANO HAD IN HIS POSSESSION THE DRIVERS LICENSE AND HAD COMMUNICATED THE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION THAT IS CON TAINED ON THAT LICENSE TO THE TELETYPE , FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES , HE HAS NO F URTHER US E FOR THE LICENSE, AND IT MATTERS ABSOLUTELY NOT WHETHER OR NOT THEY COME BACK OR NOT .

JUSTICE: AREN'T WE GETTING PRETTY TECHNICAL ?

I AM SO RRY ?

JUSTICE: AREN'T WE GETTING PRETTY TECHNICAL , IF YOU SAY THAT AS SOON AS HE PUTS THE INFORMATION INTO THE SYSTEM THAT A T THATP OINT HE H A S TO G IVE THE LICENSE BACK?

NO. I DON'T THINK WE ARE GE TTING TECHNICAL AT AL L.I THINK THAT IS WHAT THE ISSUE IS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: REALLY , CERTAINLY I IN MANY CASES IS SUPPORTED MAKING SURE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAS MEANING, BUT IF SOMEBODY CONSENTS TO A WARRANTS CHECK , THEY ARE CONSENTING TO SOMEBODY CHECKING TO SEE IF THERE ARE OUTSTANDING WARRANTS ON THEM, SO DURING THAT TIME THEY EXPLICITLY CONSENTED T O STA YING THERE WHILE THE WARRANTS CHECK SO G O ING AND COMPLETED .

WELL , I DON'T BELIEVETHAT THE RECORD IN T HIS CASE S HOWS THAT MR . CAMPBELL CONSENTED TO A WARRANTS CHECK. I THINK WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS IS THAT THE OFFICERWALKED UP TO A CAR WHERE HE WAS DOING ABS OLUTELY NOT HING W RONG, TAPPED ON THE WI NDOW AND ASKED HIM A QUESTION AS TO WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE, TO WHICH HE RESPONDED. THE PO LICE SAID THEY HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT THAT THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE HIM. HE WAS WA ITING FOR THE YOUNG CHILDREN'S MOTHER TO COME DOWN, AND AT THAT POINT THEY ASKED HIM FOR HIS LICENSE. WHEN HE PRO DUCED IT, THEN THEY ADVISED HIM WE ARE GOING TO RU N A WARRANTS CHECK ON YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO SINCE YOU SEEM TO HAVE THE RECORD RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, WHAT , THEY ASKED HIM FOR IDENTIFICATION, AND IT LOOKED TO BE IDENTIFICATION , AND THEN THE N E XT THING THEY ASKED HIM WHAT HE WAS DOIN G.

WELL , I AM LOOK ING AT PAGE 32 , AND IT SAYS ONCE ITOOK IT FROM HIM, I JUST SAID I AM GOING TO CHECK YOU FOR ANY WARRANTS OR CHECKYOUR LICENSE. THAT IS WHAT HE SAID.

CHIEF JUSTICE: AND WHAT DID CAMPBELL --

HE SAID I HAVE N O PROBLEM.BUT HE SAID I HAVE NO PROBLEM , ONLY A FTER H E HAD BEEN EFFECTIVELY SEIZED.

JUSTICE: WELL , LET ME ASKYOU THIS. THE TRIAL COURT HERE MADE A SPECIFIC STATEMENT IN THE O RDER, AS I UNDERSTAND IT , THAT THE COURT DOES F IND THAT THE OFFICERS DID NOTHING IMP ROPER .

THAT IS WHAT THEY DID TO THE WARRANTS C HECK.

JUSTICE: NO W, THE BOTTOM LINE OF THIS W H OLE ARGUMENT HERE AND WHAT THE TR IAL COURT DID, WAS THE TRIAL COURT SUPP RESSED THE FILE , CORRECT?

THAT IS CO RRECT.

JUSTICE: UNDER THE EXCLUSIONARY RU LE.

SURE.

JUSTICE: NOW , THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS REPEATEDLY SAID SINCE 19 76 THAT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IS NOT AS PRESCRIBED , A FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIO N PER SE, BUT THAT IT APPLIES ONLY IN THE C ONTEXT WHERE REMEDIAL OBJECTIVES ARE THOUGHT TO B E SERVED . NOW , WHAT IS THE REMEDIAL OBJECTIVE THAT WOULD BE SERVED IN THIS IN STANCE , I F THE POLICE OFFICER S DID NOTHING WRONG ? NOTHING IMPR OPER .

WELL , YOU KNOW , I THINK THAT THIS COURT HAS THEOPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THINGS DE NO VO WITH RE GARD T O APPLYING THE FACTS TO THELAW , AND I THINK THAT IN THIS PARTIC ULAR CASE , THE REAL ISSUE IS WHEN THE POLICE DETAIN ED AND RETAINED MR . CAMPBELL'S DRIVERS LICENSE , WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS EFFECTIVELY SEIZED FOR FOURTH AMENDMENT PURPOSES.

JUSTICE: BUT THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA SAYS THAT W E HAVE TO FOLLOW IN THESE FOURTH AMENDMENT CASES , THE DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION , OF THE U NITED STATES SUPREME COURT, RIGHT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

JUSTICE: AND THAT APPLIES TO THEIR CASES ON THE APPLICATION O F THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE, DOES IT NOT?

ABSOLUTELY, AND IN BOSSTIC, WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SCENARIO ENTIRELY THAN WE HAD IN JORDAN AND THOMPSON AND A NUMBER OF OTHER FEDERAL CASES . FOR EX AMPLE , THERE IS A DISTINCTION TO BE D R AWN BETWEEN WHETHER WE ARE GOINGTO APPLY A FREE DOM TO LEAVE ANALYSIS VE RSUS A FREEDOM TO DECLINE ANALYSIS , AND IN BOSTICK THERE WAS A FREEDOM TO DE CLINE ANA LYSIS , BECAUSE AFTER ALL IT WAS NOT THEPOLICE WHO HAD DONE ANY THING TO RESTRICT BOSTICK'SMOVEMENT. BOSTICK'S MO VEMENT WAS RESTRICTED SI MPLY WAS BECAUSE BOSTICK WAS ON A BU S AND WASN'T GOING ANYWHERE , WHEREAS IN THOM PSON ANDOTHER CASES THAT YOU AREFAMILIAR WITH , JO RDAN AM ONG THEM , IT WAS THE POLICE ACTION NOT THE ACTION OF THE CITIZEN , THAT C A USED HIM TO BE DETA INED .

JUSTICE: I N THAT VEIN,CAN YOU GIVE US A VERBAL SKETCH OF THE CIRCUM STANCES HERE. HOW MANY POLICE OFFICERS WERE INVOLVED, WHERE AROUND THE VEHICLE THEY STOOD AND WHETHER THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED NOSE FIRST OR TA IL FIRST.

IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY ON THAT POINT, THE VEHICLE WAS BACKED INTO A SPOT. I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT THE RECORD INDICATES. BUT THERE IS NO QUES TION IT WAS LEGA LLY PARKED AND THAT THE SOLE PURPOS E FOR THE POLICE TO APPROACH MR . CAMPBELL WAS TO CHECK HIM O UT AND SEE WHAT HE WAS DOING .

JUSTICE: HOW MANY POLICE WERE THERE AND WHERE DID THEY STAND IN RELATION TO THE VEHICLE?

THERE WERE THREE POLICE OFFICERS, ALL DETECTIVES W ITH THE BROWARD SHERIFFS OFFICE. DETECTIVE CATALANO.

JUSTICE: WER E THEY IN UNIFORM OR P LAIN CL OTHES ?

THEY WERE WEARING A JACKET THAT INDICATED THEY WERE BR OWARD SHERIFFS OFFICERS. AND THEY WALKED UP , THEYWERE NOT IN UNIFORM PER SE , BUT , YES , THEY IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES BY THEIR CLO THING, I BELIEVE. DETECTIVE CATALANO STOOD BY THE DRIVERS WINDOW. DETECTIVE WHITE STOOD ADJACENT TO MR . CAMPBELL ON THE PASSENGER SIDE , AND DETECTIVE CARTER WAS OFF TO THE REAR OF THE CAR. IT IS NOT EXACTLY CLEAR HOW FAR BEHIND THE CAR IT WAS, BUT I DO AGREE WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION THAT THEPOLICE AG REE TO, THAT YOU YOU KNOW , THEY WERE EFFECTIVELY SURR OUNDING THE C AR. I MEAN , THERE WERE ONLY THREE OF THEM. YOU COULDN'T SURROUND THE CAR ANYM ORE F ULLY THAN THEY DID.

JUSTICE: DOES THE RECORD SHOW WHETHER THE DEFENDANTKNEW THAT THERE WAS A POLICE OFFICER AT THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE ?

THE RECORD DOESN'T INDICATE THAT YOU BECAUSE THE DEF ENDANT DID NOT TESTIFY .

JUSTICE: BUT IN AN Y EVENT THE POLICE OFFICER AT THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE WAS NOT PREVENTING EGRE SS OF THE V EHICLE BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED TAIL FIRST.

THE ONLY THING THAT WAS PREVENTING THE EGRESS OF THE VEHICLE WAS DETECTIVE CATALANO HO LDING ON TO HISMEANS TO D RIVE A WAY AND I DO WANT TO POINT OUT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY TALKED ABOUT HERE AND THAT IS UNDER 322.15. WHEN AN OFFICER APPROACHES SOMEONE WHO IS SEATED IN A CAR AND REQUESTS THE LICENSE , I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A REASONABLE OBJECTIVE P ERSON WOULD FEEL AS THOUGH THEY HAVE ANY RIGHT WHATSOEVER TO TELL THAT OFFICER NO. NOR D O I THINK THAT LEG ALLY THAT PE RSON WOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT , E ITHER IN A PARKED VEHICLE, AND THE R ONY MA KETHAT STATEMENT , IS IF YOU M UCH TO -- IF YOU WERE TO L OOK AT 322 UNDER THE DEFINITIONAL SECTION, IT STATES PRETTY CLEA RLY THAT DRIVING ME ANS BEING IN PHYSICAL CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE, ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL, SO THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE SAME ANALYSIS THAT WE WOULD APPLY TO A D UI CASE WOULD APPLY TO A DRIVING CASE AT ALL, SO, REALLY, IN FACT, HE HAD NO CHOICE WHEN CONFRONTED BY THE OFFICERS , BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT HE WAS SEATED IN A CAR THAT HE HAD TO GIVE HIS LICENSE TO THE OFFICER.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WAS THAT ARGUMENT MADE TO THE TRIALCOURT?

THIS AR GUMENT WAS NOT MADE TO THE TRIAL COURT, PRIMARILY BECAUSE IT WAS SETTLED LAW AT THE TIME THAT THIS MOTION WAS H E ARD BELOW , THAT RETENTION OF THE LICENSE WAS PER SE A DETENTION .

CHIEF JUSTICE: WELL , DO WE NEED TO, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE COURT DECIDES AS A WHOLE, I AM CONCERNED THAT THE CASE THAT THE FOURTH DISTRICT SE NT TO US SO UNDS LIKE A DIFFERENT CASE THAN WE ARE NOW DISCUSSING , AND SPECIFICALLY WITH THIS VERY CLEAR STATEMENT AT THE BEGINNING THAT THE WARRANTS CHECK CAME BACK CLEAN , AND IT WAS ONLY AFTER THAT , THAT THEY THEN ASKED FOR THECONSENT TO SEAR CH. YOU HAVE CONC EDED HERE TODAY , THAT IS NOT THE CASE. I AM TR YING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT FACT GOT INTO THIS OPINION OF JU DGE STONE'S.

I DON'T REALLY KNOW. I CAN ONLY SUGGEST ON THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO ORAL ARGUMENTS BELOW IN THE FOURTH D CA. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT FACT CAME FROM , BUT I DO MAINT AIN --

CHIEF JUSTICE: DIDSOMEONE ON MOTION FORREHEARING ON EITHER SIDE ASK THAT --

NO. NO. CHIEF THE DEFE NDANT DIDN'T EITHER?

NO , YOUR HONOR. THE POINT THAT I THINK IS CRITICAL HERE IS REALLY ABOUT MR . CAMPBELL SEAT ED IN HIS CAR. HE IS A SKED FOR HIS LICENSE. HE DOES N'T HAVE ANY CHOICE IN THE MATTER . NOW , THEY TA KE THE LICENSE.

JUSTICE: LET ME GO BACK TO YOUR ARGUMENT HERE. YOU APPEAR TO BE SUGGESTING , IF YOU DIDN'T SAY IT, I F THAT IS WHAT YOUR PO SITION IS , IS THAT BY OPERATION OF THE FLORIDA STAT UTE A PERSON IS REQU IRED TO DEMONSTRATE THEIR LICENSE TO A POLICE OFFICER, THAT BECOMING AN UNREASONABLE SEIZ URE OF THAT INDIVIDUAL.

WELL, BUT FOR WHAT PURPOSE? THAT IS WHAT THE QUESTION IS. IF FLORIDA YOU LAW WOULD -- IF FLOR IDA LAW WOULD , AND YOU RAISE D TWO ISSUES , AND IWANT TO TAKE THE M ONE AT A TIME. THE F IRST ON E IS , IF FLORIDA L AW DOES REQUIRE THAT , WHICH I SUGGEST THAT IT , THER E IS A INTERPRETATION THAT IT CAN REQUIRE THAT , THEN THE OFFICER CAN ONLY RETAIN THAT LICENSE FOR A REASONABLE REASON. THAT IS TO SAY IF THERE WAS INDEED A TRAFFIC STOP , I THI NK A CONSTITUTIONAL REA DING OF THE STATUTE --

JUSTICE: WH Y DO YOU GIVE THE LICENSE? YOU GIVE THE LICENSE SO YOU CAN LOOK AT IT AND I G UESS LOOK AT THE LICENSE AND LOOK AT THE PERSON. IT IS THE PERSON. BUT WHY WOULD YOU NOT THEN BE PERMI TTED REASONABLY, TO RUN IT THROUGH THE SYSTEM TO SEE IF THIS IS A V ALID P LASTIC P IECE OF THING THAT THIS PERSON HAS HANDED ME?

WELL , THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AS OPPOSED TO A TRAFFIC STOP, THERE IS NO REASON THAT THE OFFICER WOULD LEGALLY HAVE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT LICENSE , OTHER THAN TO REVIEW IT. THERE IS NO BA SIS IN LAW .

JUSTICE: HE IS S ITTING THERE.YOU DON'T WA NT TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS A VA LID LICENSE? AND HE IS IN CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. WHY WOULD IT NOT BE REASONABLE TO CHECK AND SEE IF THAT IS A VALID PIECE O F PLASTIC?

BECAUSE HE HAS GOT NO BUSINESS DOING IT CONSTITUTIONALLY. WHAT MY SUGGEST IS THAT THE STATUTE MAY MAN DATE IT, ANDTHAT GOES TO WHETHER OR NOT A REASO NABLE PERSON WOULD FEEL AS THOUGH HE HAD ANYREASON TO DE CLINE THE OFFICER'S REQUEST.I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THAT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL READING OF THE STATUTE, BECAUSE WHAT YOU YOU G ET INTO THERE IS WHAT THE COURTS HAVE HE LD IN A NUMBER OF THE FEDERAL BO RDER CASESAND OTHERS , THAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE R O VING PA TROLS , AND ASK FOR IDENTIFI CATION , AND THEN DO WITH THAT WHAT YOUPLEASE. THIS IS REALLY NOT HING MORE THAN WHAT COURTS HAVE HELD TO BE AN IMPERMISSIBLE SEIZURE , BECAUSE IT IS A R OVING PAT ROL.

JUSTICE: YOU SEEM TO BE SUGGESTING, HOWEVER , THAT BECAUSE OF THIS STATUTE , IF MR . CAMPBELL HAS SAID , NO , I AM NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU MY LICENSE , THEN THE OFFICERS WOULD HAVE HAD SOME REASON TO FORCE HIM TO GIVE THE LICENSE.

WELL , THAT IS NOT THE WHAT THE STATUTE -- THAT IS NOT WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS.THERE ARE STATUTES THAT REQUIRE , FOR EXAMPLE --

JUSTICE: IF THAT IS NOT WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS THEN I AM MISSING THE POINT OF YOUR ARGUMENT ABOUT THE STATUTE.

I AM SAY ING THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD FEEL AS THOUGH HE HAS TO GIV E IT. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE POLICE COULD AR REST HI M OR OTHERWISE FORC E HIM TO PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION.I AM J UST SAYING THAT HE IS OPERATING THE VEHICLE AT THAT POINT , AND A REASONABLE P ERSON WOULD FEEL AS T HOUGH HE HAS TO SU BMIT TO THE APPARENT AUTHORITY OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS , AS OPPOSED TO THE CASES THAT WAS CITED IN THE BA EZ CASE THAT SPEAKS T O THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A STATUTE MANDATING IDENTIFICATION IS CONSTITUTIONAL, AND THERE THEY SAID ONLY IF THERE IS FOUNDED SUSP ICION TO BELIEVETHAT THERE IS A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY A FOOT AND THAT WOULD NOT BE A CONSTITUTIONAL READING OF THIS STATUTE TO SAY THAT HE HAS TO, UPON PENALTY OF ARREST, GIVE UP HIS LICENSE.

JUSTICE: WHAT IS YOUR BOTTOM LINE HERE? WHAT IS IT THAT Y OU WOULD HAVE THIS COURT HO LD THAT THE , GIVING OF THE DRIVERS LICENSE, THE TAKING OF THE DRIVERS LICENSE , THE ASK ING FOR THE DRIVERS LICENSE BEC OMING THE SEIZURE , AT WHAT POINT DO YOU WANT US TO SAY THAT THERE WAS A SEIZURE?

THIS IS THE RULE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE COM E OUT OF THIS CAMPBELL. I WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO UNDERSTAND THE REALITY OF THE SITU ATION AS A WH OLE, THAT WHEN A POLICE OFFICER COMES UP TO A CITIZEN SUCH AS MR . CAMPBELL , SEAT ED IN A CAR , AND ASKS FOR A DRIVERS LICENSE, AND THEN IT IS PRODUCED TO HIM , THAT THEY MAY NOT RETAIN THAT LICENSE , AND --

JUSTICE: BEYOND WHAT?

BEYOND , A T THE POINT IN TIME WHEN THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING ELSE , LIKE ASK FOR CONSENT.SO I AM SUG GESTING THAT CONSENT , WHILE HE IS BEING EFFECTIVELY IMMOBILIZED BY THE OFFICER'S RETENTION OF THE DRIVERS LICENSE , S H OULD BE IN MY VIEW, AND I THINK IN THE VI EW OF JORDAN AND THOMPSON AND A NUMBER OF OTHER FE DERAL CASES , A CRITICAL FACTOR TO HOLD THAT THE CONSENT IS INVOLUNTARY.

JUSTICE: SO YOU CAN N EVER GET , YOUR POINT, THEN , IS YOU CAN NEVER HAVE VOLUNTARY CONSENT, AS LONG AS THE OFFICER HAS, IN HIS O R HER POSSESSION, A PERSON'S DRIVERS LICENSE. THAT IS THE BO TTOM LINE.

WELL , QUALIFIED B Y THAT THE CONSENT THAT THEY GET CANNOT BE LEGAL , UN LESS THEPOLICE OFFICER FIRST HAD FOUNDED SUSPICION TO DETAI N HIM IN THE FIRST IN STANCE. THAT IS THE CRITICAL DISTINCTION.REMEMBER THERE WAS JUST AMONTH AGO , THAT THE FIRST DISTRICT DISTINGUIS HED THE CHANG CASE AND APPROVED CAMPBELL BELOW , B Y STATINGTHAT A PEDESTRIAN WHO SURE E ND ARE HIS HIS -- WHO SURRENDER S HIS LICENSE W ITHOUT FOUNDED SUSP ICION TO A POLICE OFFICER WHO , THEN , CLIPPED IT TO HIS POLICE BELT AND THEN CONTINUED ON IN AN INTERROGATION OF HIM, REQUESTING CONSENT WIT HOUT ANY FOUNDED SUSPICION. THAT ONE FACTOR CA USED THE CONSENT THAT THE BRIGHT DEFENDANT GAVE T O BE MADE , TO BE INVOLUNTARY BY LAW.

CHIEF JUSTICE: MY CONCERNIS THAT THE CONSENT TO THE WARRANTS CHECK WAS NOT E VER FOUND BY THE TRIAL COURT , BECAUSE AT THAT T IME BAEZ HAD THE FOURTH DIS TRICT OPINION IN BAEZ , SAID THAT IF THERE WAS A RETE NTION OF THE LICENSE BEYOND JUST S HOWING THAT THERE WAS A DETENTION , SO WE REALLY HAVE A FOURTH DIST RICT OPINIONTHAT TALKS ABOUT THE WARRANTS CHECK BEING CONCLUDED , SO IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT, WHAT EVER HA PPENS , THAT WE NEED , THE TRIAL COURT HASN'T MADE THEFINDINGS THAT WOULD SHOW , AGAIN, YOU SAY THERE COULD N EVER BE A VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT TO RUN A WARRANTS CHECK. LET'S AS SUME WE DIS AGREE WITH YOU, THEN AT THE VERY LEAST THAT FACT UAL FI NDING WOULD NEED TO BE MADE BY THE TRIAL COURT, CO RRECT ?

WELL , IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THERE WAS AN OUTSTANDING WARRANT , OR WE WOULD HAVE INDEPENDENT FACT TO CONS IDER HERE. THAT IS THE ONE THAT WAS JUST RECENTLY DECIDED IN BREYER SON BY THIS COURT , BUT --

JUSTICE: THE ONLY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD WAS THAT WHEN HE WAS ASKED FOR HIS DRIVERS LICENSE , HE CONSENTED AND GA VE IT , AND THE OFFICER SAID , WELL , WE ARE DOING A RECORDS CHECK .

THAT I S THE EVI DENCE.

JUSTICE: THAT IS THEEVIDENCE. IT IS NOT DISPUTED.

IT DOE SN'T GO FURTHER THAN THAT. THE QUESTION WAS NOT ASKEDAT THE TRIAL LEVEL , WITH REGARD TO WHETH ER OR NOT --

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU ARESAYING THAT BECAUSE BAEZ REALLY DIDN'T REQUIRE YOU TO GO ANY FA RTHER , I S THAT WHY THE RECORD ISN'T DEVELOPED?

I AM SULINGTING WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO -- I AM SUGGESTING WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO DEVELOP THE RECORD WITH RE GARD TO THAT FACTOR.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I THIN K YOU CAN HEAR FROM MEMBERS OF THIS COURT AND OTHER COURTS THAT FROM THE BAEZ CASE , IT IS NOT AS CUT AND DRIED AS THAT.

CHIEF JUSTICE PARIENTE , I WANT TO POINT O UT, I SEE MY TIM E IS AB OUT OUT , BUT ON CETHEY HAVE ALREADY INPUTEDTHIS THAT INFORMATION, THE BUYING GRAPHI CAL INFORMATION IN THE COM -- THE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION IN THE COMP UTER , THERE IS NO OTHER PURPOSE TO BE SE RVED BY HOLDING THE LICENSE, OTHER THAN TO USE IT AS LEVERAGE TO GET CONSENT .

JUSTICE: SO NOT KNOWING WHERE THE POLICE CAR IS OR WHETHER THERE IS SOME M O BILE THING THAT YOU CAN P U NCH IT ALL INTO, YOU WOULD HAVE,THEN, THE OFFICER, IF HE HASIT IN HIS CAR , GO TO HIS CAR , PUNCH IN THE INFORMATION , COME BACK , IMMEDIATELY GIVE THE GUY HIS LICENSE BACK ANDONLY THAT WOULD SATISFY THEFOURTH AMEND MENT.

Y ES. BECAUSE OTHERWISE UNDER ALL OF THE CASES , HE IS DETA INED. AND HE CANNOT GET LEGITIMATE CONSENT, WHEN THERE IS A DETENTION.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THA NK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CHIEF JUSTICE: REBUTTAL.

VERY BRIEFLY.

JUSTICE: CAN I ASK YOU AQUESTION. YOUR OPPO NENT POINTS TO SECTION 322. 15 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE, WHICH YOU YOU SAID REQU IRES A MOTORIST THE TO PRODUCE A DRIVERS LICENSE UPON REQUEST OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER . IS THAT HOW YOU READ SECTION 322.15?

IF I , I AM S O RRY . I HONE STLY DO NOT RECALL WHAT IT SAYS PRECISELY .

JUSTICE: I AM READING IT HERE AND IT SAYS E V ERY LICENSEE SHALL HAVE HIS OR HER DRIVERS LICENSE AND THEN S AYS AT HIS MEAD POSSESSION AT ALL TI MES WHEN OPERATE AGO MOTOR VEHICLE AND SHOULD DISPLAY THE SAME UPON DEMAND OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT , AND SUBSECTION 4 SAYS AVIOLATION OF SUBSECTION ONE IS A NONCRIMINAL TRAFFIC INFRACTION. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE STATUTE SAYS THERE IS NO CONSENT ABOUT IT. YOU ARE REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW TO PRODUCE A DRIVERS LICENSE UPON REQU EST OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. OTHERWISE YOU VI OLATED THE STATUTE AND IT IS A NONCRIMINAL TRAFFIC VIOLATION. NONTRAFFIC VIOLATION.

RI GHT. SEEMINGLY SO, BUT I AM NOTCERTAIN HOW THAT PLAYS INTO THIS.

JUSTICE: WELL , ISN'T THE PREMISE OF THE STAT E'S INDICATES FACT THAT HE CONSENTED TO DO GIVING THE DRIVERS LICENSE IN THE FIRSTPLACE.

YE S.

JUSTICE: SO IF THE STATUTE REQUIR ES YOU TO GIVE YOUR DRIVERS LICENSE , THEN THE CONSENT IS IRRELEVANT . HE WAS REQUIRED TO G IVE HIS DRIVERS LICENSE.

WELL , BUT THAT IS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. WHAT ABOUT A FLORIDA IDENTIFICATION CARD.SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN REALLY USE THAT PARTICULAR STATUTE TO , FOR , DETERMINE THE FACTOR S, SINCE WE HAVE GOT OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE IT MAY NOT BE A DRIVERS LICENSE.IT MAY JUST BE AN I .D. CARD.

JUSTICE: IN THIS CASE IT WAS A DRIVERS LICENSE.

YES. IN THIS CASE IT WAS ADRIVERS LICENSE.

JUSTICE: AND HE WAS IN A CAR, SO HE WAS A MOTORIST ATTHE TIME, AND THIS APP LIES TO MOTIVES WRISTS. -- TO MOTO RISTS .

YES. I DON'T DISAGREE WIT H THAT BUT I DON'T WANT T O USE THAT STATUTE AS A REASON FOR FIND THAT THIS ENCOUNTER WAS CONSENTUAL. I WANT THIS COURT TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE A CONSENTUAL ENCOUNTER AND GOING AS FAR BACK A S TERRY VERSUS O HIO , THE POLICE OFFICER CAN APPROACH THE VEHICLE, ASK FOR IDENTIFICATION AND CAN EVEN ASK TO SEARCH. THIS IS NOT A NOVEL IDEA.

CHIEF JUSTICE: WITH OUR HELP YOU HAVE USED UP YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.THANK YOU TO BOTH SIDES , AND WE WILL TAKE OUR MORNING REC ESS OF 15 MIN UTES.

MARSHA L: PLEASE RI SE.

THE MARSHAL: PLEASE RIS E