assertion of the officer’s authority. The touchstone of the Hodari D. doctrine is the absence of a seizure of the person. Thus, when an unseized person tosses away his property, that person has no expectation that his property will not be interfered with (or seized) by the police. In the instant case, the trial court found that Chitty “voluntarily gave the officers the item contained in his pocket and walked away.. . . Because the officer was in contact with and frisked the defendant for good reason and the defendant consented [to] emptying his pockets, the motion to suppress is overruled.” The trial court’s legal conclusions from the essentially undisputed historical facts are subject to our review. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 134 L. Ed. 2d 911 (1996) (<HOLDING>). In the case at hand, the evidence shows that
holding that warrantless searches are reviewed de novo whereas searches conducted pursuant to a search warrant are reviewed under a less demanding standard holding that determinations of reasonable suspicion for investigative stops and probable cause to perform warrantless searches should be reviewed de novo by appellate courts holding the ultimate question of probable cause should be reviewed de novo holding appellate courts should review findings of historical fact for clear error only giving due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers while as general matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal holding that the question of whether the police had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make a warrantless search should be reviewed de novo