Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Wilfredo NAVARRO and Roerme Navarro, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-02-21
Citations: 464 So. 2d 137
Docket Number: No. 83-908
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Wilfredo NAVARRO and Roerme Navarro, Appellees.
Judges: Before HENDRY, BARKDULL and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 464
Pages: 137–143

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Wilfredo NAVARRO and Roerme Navarro, Appellees.
No. 83-908.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 21, 1984.
On Rehearing En Banc Feb. 19, 1985.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard E. Doran, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Arthur E. Huttoe and John H. Lipinski, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY, BARKDULL and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the State from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence seized from the persons and the automobile of the defendants/appellees.
The trial judge set forth his findings of fact and conclusions of law in the following order:
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court upon the Defendants' Motion to Suppress, the Court having heard Argument of Counsel, having read the Court File and Depositions included therein, having examined and evaluated the demeanor and credibility of the Witnesses presented, and being fully apprised of all pertinent facts, it is hereby:
ORDERED and ADJUDGED the Defendants' Motion to Suppress be granted in that:
1. The original stopping of the Defendants was not reasonable, based upon the testimony the State presented. The facts presented by the State showed only a mere suspicion and not the reasonable suspicion as is required by the Law for such a stop. See § 901.151, Florida Statutes.
2. The group of men of which ROERME NAVARRO was a part were respectable Businessmen containing of [sic] two Newspapermen, an Attorney and a Local Businessman. Their appearance and demeanor justified no suspicion of Criminal Activity.
3. The slight bulge in the suit worn by ROERME NAVARRO did not constitute a reasonable suspicion that he was committing a crime, especially as such a slight bulge was in ROERME NAVARRO'S hip area and could easily have been a wallet or other innocent object. There is no evidence the slight bulge was distinctively shaped like or had the distinctive outline of a Weapon.
4. The Court's Assessment of DETECTIVE DIAZ's demeanor during testimony and the conflicts in his testimony as compared to that of the other Officers compels the Court to doubt that a knowing and voluntary consent to search the car was given. Certainly, the Evidence presented by the State does not show such an informed, knowing and voluntary consent. See Correa vs. State, 389 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
5. The Court's finding that a voluntary consent is lacking is buttressed by the fact that, although Television Personnel mysteriously arrived at the time of the arrest, this "consent" was not preserved or witnessed by them for posterity.
6. The Court specifically finds the police action violated the Defendants' Right to Privacy as guaranteed by the 23rd Amendment to the Florida Constitution and Article I, § 12 of the Florida Constitution as well as the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
7. As the police action was directed at appropriately-dressed businessmen and as the action was generated by no facts warranting such police intrusion, the police actions in this case were so intrusive as to deny these Defendants, well dressed businessmen innocently walking the Main Streets of Miami, in the afternoon (3:00 P.M.) their Right to Due Process of Law, as guaranteed by both the State and Federal Constitutions.
This finding is based partly on the fact that although only ROERME NAVARRO had a slight bulge in his wallet area, all of the persons in the group were stopped, detained and frisked. The Court finds such "overkill" to be a particularly unjustified limitation on an Individual's freedom and to characterize the unconstitutional overzealousness demonstrated by the Police. See Jackson vs. State, 403 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Defendants' Motion to Suppress is granted.
In reviewing the findings of a trial judge on a motion to suppress, the findings must be accepted by the appellate court if the record reveals evidence to support the findings. State v. Favaloro, 424 So.2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Battleman, 374 So.2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
We have concluded that the State has failed to show reversible error on this record, therefore the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.