IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE

NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR

ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: MO98-25
DIVISION: 63
STATE OF FLORIDA
Plaintiff,
ss.
MARY WHITTAKER
Defendant.
_______________________________________/
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SUPPRESS
COMES NOW the Defendant, MARY WHITTAKER, by and through the undersigned
counsel, pursuant to the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; the 14th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution; and the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.190(g) and moves this Honorable
Court to suppress all evidence, statements and confessions that resulted from the Defendants
illegal seizure, search and arrest in the above-captioned case. In support of this motion the
Defendant would show:
PARTICULAR EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE SUPPRESSED
1. The Defendant prays for suppression of the statement that she smoked crack cocaine
approximately two (2) hours before the event. This is pursuant to the 4th Amendment
and the Florida Rule of Criminal Procedures 3.190(h) because the officers illegally
obtained the statement from the Defendant by harassing her and used authority upon the
Defendant.

2. The Defendant requests to suppress observations of the Defendant doing crack cocaine on
this particular day based on crack cocaine use in the past. This is pursuant to 90.404
Fla. Stat. (2015) because evidence of a persons character is inadmissible to prove the
action in conformity with it on a particular occasion.
3. The Defendant prays for suppression of the crack pipe with wire mesh inside in addition
to a ball of copper wire mesh found on her person. To be clear, the evidence for
suppression is identified as a long metal tube with rubber on one end and wire mesh on
the other end as well as a separate ball of copper wire mesh. This is pursuant to the 4th
Amendment and the Florida Rule of Criminal Procedures 3.190(g) because the crack pipe
and ball of copper wire mesh was illegally seized without a warrant, making the
Defendant feel complied to give the crack pipe and ball of copper wire mesh up.
GENERAL STATEMENTS OF THE FACTS
4. On November 5, 1998, at approximately 2:50 p.m., the officers and the Defendant had
come into contact at the hole.
5. Deputy Taylor and the Defendant have come into contact in the past and recognized each
other during the incident.
6. Officer Taylor has arrested the Defendant in the past.
7. The officers were harassing the Defendant with questions in a demanding tone, assuming
she was doing something illegal.
8. Deputy Taylor was right in the Defendants face, blocking her path to get out of the hole.
9. Deputy Taylor, in a nasty tone, asked the Defendant to search herself without even asking
for identification.
10. The Defendant always gets searched when she runs into an officer.
11. The Defendant was forced to take her pipe and ball of copper wire mesh out of her
pocket.
12. The Defendant was given a citation.
REASONS FOR SUPPRESSION

13. Law enforcement officials do not violate the 4th Amendment by merely approaching an
individual on the street or other public places and asking that individual on the street or
other public place and asking that individual whether he or she is willing to answer some
questions, by putting questions to the individual, if the person is willing to listen, or by
offering into evidence, in a criminal prosecution, that the individual voluntarily answered
such questions. State v. Poole, 730 So. 2d 340 (3d DCA 1999). In the instant case, the
law enforcement officers violated Ms. Whittakers 4th Amendment right by doing more
than just merely approaching Ms. Whittaker. The officers showed authority, blocked Ms.
Whittakers path, and demanded to search herself.
14. A question simply asking about criminal conduct does not comport with opinions from
this district and others indicating that absent indicia of coercion or intimidating
circumstances, such a question, alone, will not convert a consensual encounter into an
unlawful detention, State v. Ferrell, 705 So. 2d 1051 (1st DCA 1998). In the instant case,
the law officers violated this rule by placing Ms. Whittaker in an intimidating
circumstance by harassing her with questions, blocking her path, and intimidating her
with a demanding tone of voice. Therefore, the officers question was accompanied by
coercion and intimidation, turning the situation into a lawful detention.
15. There are 3 types of police-citizen encounters. First is consensual, which a citizen may
voluntarily comply with the officers requests or choose to ignore them. The second is
investigatory, when the officer reasonably detains the citizen temporarily if the officer has
suspicion is not enough to support a stop. The third is an arrest which must be supported
by probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed, Popple v. State, 626 So.
2d 185 (Fla. 1993). In the instant case, the law enforcement officers went beyond a
consensual encounter by encountering Ms. Whittaker with an investigatory stop by

blocking her path. However, the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to believe
that Ms. Whittaker was doing anything illegal at the time, therefore, violating her 4th
Amendment right.
16. The 4th Amendment states that people have the right to be secure against unreasonable
searches and seizures and shall not be violated. If there is suspicion that the individual is
armed, the police have the power to frisk him for weapons. If the police have to stop and
frisk, then it will lead to the arrest and a full search of that person. This is the crucial
difference between the terms, stop and frisk and arrest and search. Terry v. Ohio, 392
U.S. 1 (1968). In the instant case, the law enforcement officers violated Ms. Whittakers
4th Amendment right by unreasonably asking her to search herself; the officers used
authority and made Ms. Whittaker feel like she was not free to leave by harassing her and
blocking her path, ultimately making her search herself.
17. The 4th Amendment permits police officers to approach individuals at random in airport
lobbies and other public places to ask them questions and to request consent to search
their luggage, so long as a reasonable person would understand that he or she could
refuse to cooperate. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991). In the instant case, when the
law enforcement officers approached Ms. Whittaker, Ms. Whittaker did not feel like she
had the right to leave. Using a mean tone of voice, blocking her path, and using
authority made her feel like she had to give up the pipe or else they would have searched
her anyway. A reasonable person would feel like they could not leave. Therefore, the
law enforcement officers violated Ms. Whittakers 4th Amendment right.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an
order granting the motion of the Defendant suppressing the evidence as indicated in the motion.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished
by hand delivery to the State Attorneys Office at 1234 Churchill Street, Orlando Florida 32819
on this 3rd day of March, 2016.

_____________________________
LAW OFFICES OF
BROCK ASH AND MISTY
Rudy Ramjeawan, Esq.
RR@brockashmistylawfirm.com
2342 Vanilla Bean Street
Orlando, FL 34930
(407)-293-2930