open, and led the officers into the apartment. The court noted that the appellee’s behavior after the officers entered the apartment also supported this holding where the appellee never objected in any way to the officers’ presence inside the apartment. Id. at 743 n. 3. Similarly, in Watson v. State, 979 So.2d 1148, 1151 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), a law enforcement sergeant asked the appellant if he could search his person and the appellant raised his arms in the air, turned so that he could see the sergeant, and told the sergeant that he could check him. The First District held that the appellant’s consent to search his person was freely and voluntarily given and was evidenced by his oral replies and his body language. Id. at 1152. Cf. Wynn v. State, 14 So.3d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, the facts were not in
holding that although appellant filed a proposed jury charge appellant did not preserve error because trial court did not endorse proposed charge and appellant did not call trial courts attention to the portions of the proposed charge that were complained about on appeal holding fourth amendment not implicated when police officers asked defendant to see his airline ticket asked for identification and requested consent to search him holding that the defendants consent to a search of his pockets for weapons cannot be interpreted as having extended so far as to have authorized the police officer to remove the contents of the defendants pockets unless he came upon something that felt like a weapon or an object immediately identifiable as contraband according to the police officer he felt neither holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his sentence because he did not object at trial holding that appellant did not unequivocally consent to a search when deputy asked him if he would mind if the contents of his pockets were removed and appellant did not respond