Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Hugo Cesar RODRIGUEZ, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-09-17
Citations: 477 So. 2d 1025
Docket Number: No. 84-1771
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Hugo Cesar RODRIGUEZ, Appellee.
Judges: Before NESBITT, FERGUSON and JOR-GENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 477
Pages: 1025–1026

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Hugo Cesar RODRIGUEZ, Appellee.
No. 84-1771.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 17, 1985.
On Rehearing Oct. 22, 1985.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Henry R. Barksdale, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Rodolfo Sorondo, Jr., Coral Gables, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, FERGUSON and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals an order suppressing cocaine which was seized from Rodriguez's person. It attempts to justify the search on consent and probable cause grounds. We reject both arguments and affirm.
With regard to the consent issue, we note that the trial judge found that Rodriguez's consent was limited to a "feeling" of his boot and did not extend to a seizure of whatever may have been felt. Applying a presumption of correctness and viewing the evidence in a manner most favorable to the trial court's ruling, Johnson v. State, 438 So.2d 774 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1329, 79 L.Ed.2d 724 (1984); State v. Gonzalez, 447 So.2d 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's order on the consent issue.
We reject the state's probable cause contention on a finding that Rodriguez's nervousness and the feeling of a soft object in his boot did not provide probable cause for a seizure of the object and its subsequent search. The case of Palmer v. State, 467 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) is distinguishable because there the defendant's consent led to a viewing of the package which, the trial court found, created probable cause. Here, the trial court found that the scope of the consent was limited to a touching of the boot. Consequently, the removal of the package from the boot, which allowed the officers to view it, was unauthorized. Absent other sufficiently suspicious circumstances, the feeling of something soft does not establish probable cause for a seizure and search of the soft object. Accordingly, the suppression order is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Drugs are often packaged in a characteristic fashion recognizable to police. Observation of such a package may provide probable cause for a search and seizure. There are an unlimited number of objects, however, which feel "soft and malleable." That sensory perception (touch) is not sufficient, at least in this case, to create probable cause.