may never reconsider a predecessor judge’s ruling. To the contrary, “[fit is settled law that while a trial court has jurisdiction of a case, and upon appropriate motion or objection made by either counsel, it has the inherent power to reconsider a previous ruling made on a motion to suppress.” State v. Graham, 721 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citing Savoie v. State, 422 So.2d 308, 312 (Fla.1982); Obregon v. State, 601 So.2d 616, 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)). It is critical, however, that the “appropriate motion or objection” originate from one of the parties, lest the trial court torpedo its role as an impartial arbiter. Reversed and remanded for a new trial. WARNER and GROSS, JJ„ concur. 1 . See generally Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 148, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The trial court solicited testimony from
holding that a seizure occurs when there is a significant interference with a persons possessory or ownership interest in property holding that applicants for welfare benefits had a property interest or legitimate claim of entitlement and were entitled to due process to protect that interest holding that a passenger who lacked a property or possessory interest in the automobile or property seized lacked standing to challenge a search of the car holding that petitioners who asserted neither a property interest nor a possessory interest in property searched or seized were not entitled to assert a constitutional challenge to the search holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property