This case asks the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether a person’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures is violated when the police approach the individual on the street – without any suspicion that he or she is engaged in criminal activity – request the individual’s identification and retain that identification long enough to run a check for outstanding warrants.  In analyzing the case, the Florida Supreme Court must first decide whether the police conduct at issue constitutes a “seizure” at all.  The facts of the case currently pending before the Florida Supreme Court are as follows: 

Lorenzo Golphin was standing with a group of approximately five men on a public sidewalk in front of an apartment building.  Uniformed Daytona Beach police officers approached the group.  As the officers approached, some of the men walked away, but Mr. Golphin made no attempt to leave.  An officer requested Mr. Golphin’s identification, which he provided.  The officer ran a computer check on the identification to determine whether Mr. Golphin had any outstanding warrants.  During the time it took to run the check (which lasted no more than a couple of minutes), Mr. Golphin told the officer that he had a criminal history, and likely had an “open warrant.”  Indeed, the computer check revealed an outstanding warrant.  The police arrested Mr. Golphin pursuant to the outstanding warrant, and a search incident to that arrest revealed that he was in possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. 

In the drug-related criminal case that resulted, Mr. Golphin submitted a motion to suppress the drugs and paraphernalia the police found.  A motion to suppress asks the trial court to exclude evidence in a criminal trial, usually because the defendant argues that the evidence was discovered as a result of police activity that violated his or her constitutional rights.  Mr. Golphin argued that by retaining his identification to run a computer check, the police had “seized” him without the required suspicion that he was involved in criminal activity.  According to Mr. Golphin, the seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and the drugs and paraphernalia should have been excluded from his trial as “fruits” of the illegal seizure.   

The trial court denied Mr. Golphin’s motion to suppress, determining that the outstanding arrest warrant was discovered as a result of a “consensual encounter.”  The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed (or upheld) the trial court’s decision.  See Golphin v. State, 838 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).  The district court relied on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991), a case which involved narcotics officers boarding buses and asking passengers for consent to search their bags.  In reversing (or overruling) the Florida Supreme Court’s decision that such “bus sweeps” always constitute “seizures” that are by definition “unreasonable,” the United States Supreme Court stated that the proper standard for determining if a seizure has occurred is whether – in light of all the circumstances – the police conduct would have communicated to a “reasonable person” that he or she could not ignore the police presence and go about his or her business.  In Bostick, the United States Supreme Court also stated that an encounter between a citizen and the police will not trigger the Fourth Amendment unless or until it loses its “consensual nature.” 

Applying the standard outlined in Bostick to the facts of the case, the district court in Golphin determined that the police officers’ conduct toward the group of men did not communicate an intent to detain the men.  The district court noted that some of the men even walked away as the police approached.  The district court also stated that there was no evidence that the police intimidated or harassed Mr. Golphin, or that he either attempted to walk away or requested the return of his identification.  To the contrary, the district court asserted, Mr. Golphin volunteered the information regarding his arrest history.  On that basis, the district court agreed with the trial court that Mr. Golphin consented to the encounter with the police. 

In its decision, the Fifth District Court of Appeal certified conflict with the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Baez v. State, 814 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).  By “certifying” a conflict, a district court of appeal acknowledges that its decision “expressly and directly” conflicts with that of another district court on the same question of law.  Such certification requests the Florida Supreme Court to exercise its jurisdiction to review the case and resolve the conflict in the law.   

In Baez, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a seizure occurs when an officer retains an identification that has been voluntarily provided to complete a check for outstanding warrants.  In Golphin, the Fifth District Court of Appeal disagreed, stating that even if the police keep a person’s identification for the purpose of checking for outstanding warrants, the person would be free to withdraw consent at any time by asking for the identification to be returned.  According to the Fifth District, the failure of police to comply with a request to return an individual’s identification would amount to a seizure.

For a more detailed explanation of the issues in this case, review the attorneys’ briefs and the appellate decision in the case.  In Golphin v. State, there are three briefs:  (1) the petitioner’s initial brief (submitted by Golphin); (2) the respondent’s answer brief (submitted by the State of Florida); and (3) the petitioner’s reply brief (submitted by Golphin).  This case is scheduled for oral argument before the Florida Supreme Court on April 20, 2005.