Case Name: Willie James WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-07-07
Citations: 547 So. 2d 215
Docket Number: No. 87-2897
Parties: Willie James WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: WALDEN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 547
Pages: 215–221

Head Matter:
Willie James WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 87-2897.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 7, 1989.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 30, 1989.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Mardi Levey Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
STONE, Judge.
The defendant entered a plea to possession of a controlled substance, reserving the right to appeal an order denying a motion to suppress. The issue on appeal is the extent to which officers who are executing a search warrant may physically restrain persons found on the premises in order to secure the area. The trial court's findings reflect that a tactical unit of officers, executing a search warrant for drugs at a residence, found the defendant outside the house near the front door. He was leaning up against the house while sitting on a box next to a table. It was after dark and the house was located in an area of high crime and drug activity. As the police entered, with guns drawn, the defendant, along with three or four other men who were present, was told to get on the ground and was handcuffed. This was a standard precaution used for the protection of the officers and others when securing an area under these circumstances. The department's experience had shown that under these conditions aggressive behavior and resistance by those at the scene was not uncommon, and that there was a likelihood of firearms being present.
Miranda warnings were read to all present, and a deputy asked the defendant if there was anything on his person that he should know about. The defendant immediately confessed to possessing drug paraphernalia in his shoe. The trial court found that the detention was reasonable, and that the subsequent search of the defendant was permissible because he stated that he had contraband on his person.
In Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 100 S.Ct. 338, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979), the Supreme Court determined that police, executing a search warrant upon a tavern and its bartender, had no right to search customers in the bar in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that the patron posed a threat. This case, however, differs from Ybarra in several respects. In Ybarra there was no factual basis to conclude that the officers had reasonable grounds to conduct a search of the customers. Additionally, there was no reason to believe that Ybarra was anyone other than a customer. The court noted that Ybarra said and did nothing suspicious. Thus, it was not reasonable for the officers to fear for their safety from the defendant and there was nothing about his physical location or appearance to connect him to either the bartender or the bar.
Here, on the other hand, there were reasonable articulated grounds to secure the defendant, who the officers, in the exigency of serving the warrant, could reasonably perceive as posing a threat to their safety, and to the security of the premises. See generally Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Harper v. State, 532 So.2d 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), rev. denied, 541 So.2d 1172 (Fla.1989); State v. Ruiz, 526 So.2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 534 So.2d 401 (Fla.1988); Morganti v. State, 498 So.2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Zaner v. State, 444 So.2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). But see Julian v. State, 528 So.2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
A lawful temporary seizure and detention is not automatically converted into an unlawful arrest because the officers at the scene elect to handcuff a defendant rather than use some other method of restraint for their protection such as holding him on the ground at gunpoint. See generally United States v. Bautista, 684 F.2d 1286 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1211, 103 S.Ct. 1206, 75 L.Ed.2d 447 (1983); State v. Ruiz, 526 So.2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering the totality of the circumstances and finding that the decision to restrain the defendant under these conditions was a reasonable and lawful procedure, and that the restraint was temporary. Had the contraband not been uncovered, the defendant, if unarmed, would have been free to leave. Nor did the court err in treating the defendant, who might well have been guarding the door, as an occupant of the premises.
Therefore, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
WALDEN, J., concurs.
GLICKSTEIN, J., dissents with opinion.
. For chilling statistics on the number of Florida law enforcement officers shot and killed, or otherwise seriously injured in the line of duty in the past year alone, see Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 1988 Annual Report (1989).