DONALD DOMINICK ROMANELLO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; ALAN ISELY, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Romanello and Isely were convicted of cannabis possession after police conducted a warrantless search of their boat. The court reversed, holding that the initial stop and detention lacked the reasonable suspicion required to justify police conduct, making the subsequent search unconstitutional.
The stop and detention were unconstitutional because the officers lacked the 'founded or reasonable suspicion' of criminal activity required by law. The officers possessed only a 'hunch' based on the boat's weighted appearance and maneuvering difficulties, which is insufficient to justify detention. Consequently, the warrantless search that followed was also invalid.
[1] A warrantless search of an automobile is permissible if the informant's tip provides probable cause to believe the automobile contains contraband.
[2] A lawful detention of a suspect does not authorize a general search of an automobile for contraband.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The officers' sole reasonable bases for believing that an offense was being committed, the odor and sight of marijuana, arose only after and because of their initial stop and detention of the defendants.”
Establishes that the grounds for search were derivative of an unlawful initial stop, making the search's validity dependent on the stop's validity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 4, 1977, two Fort Lauderdale police officers, coincidentally in the area, became curious about Romanello and Isely's difficulty in trailer…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Odor Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge.
After the court had denied their motion to suppress the contraband which was the basis of the charge against them, the appellants were convicted of the possession of cannabis. We hold that the motion should have been granted and reverse the judgments below.
On the forenoon of February 4, 1977, the attention of two Fort Lauderdale police officers, who were each in the area entirely coincidentally, was attracted to the defendants’ attempt to trailer a boat at the Seventh Avenue ramp in that city. Romanello was in a van with an attached trailer; Isely, in the boat trying to negotiate it from the water onto the trailer. Only, and admittedly, to satisfy what one called a “curiosity” aroused as a result of the men’s having apparent difficulty in the operation because the vessel seemed heavily loaded, the officers — after the boat had finally been successfully trailered — approached and detained both defendants. While one policeman, Lynch, sought motor vehicle information from Romanello, the other, Hudson, asked Isely for the boater’s registration. When Hudson followed Isely onto the boat, he allegedly smelled the odor of marijuana emitting from it and said that he noticed a “little glob” of marijuana on the deck. The resulting warrantless search of the boat indeed revealed a large quantity of marijuana for the possession of which both defendants were convicted.
The officers’ sole reasonable bases for believing that an offense was being committed, the odor and sight of marijuana, arose only after and because of their initial stop and detention of the defendants.1 Thus, the search may be upheld only if the stop may. And it is clear that it may not. The mere recitation of the facts which led to the defendants’ detention establishes that the officers had nothing approaching the “founded or reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity required to support such conduct. Lewis v. State, 337 So. 2d 1031, 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); § 901.151, Fla. Stat. (1975).
Instead, the officers had only a “hunch” (although a good one, as it turned out), that is, a “bare” or “unfounded” suspicion that something was wrong, which is clearly not sufficient to validate a stop and detention. E. g., Currens v. State, 363 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), and cases cited; Whitley v. State, 349 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
Surely, the weighted down appearance of the boat and the difficulties encountered in maneuvering it, which is all the officers had upon which to base their “curiosity,” cannot, in this day and age, and particularly in this location, be deemed to provide a proper “foundation” or “reasonable” basis for suspecting the existence of crime.2 Since the motipn to suppress should therefore have been granted, the judgments are reversed with directions to discharge the defendants.
Reversed and Remanded.
LETTS and BÉRANEK, JJ., concur. . For this reason, such cases as Miranda v. State, 354 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978) and Tamburro v. State, 343 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), which find “probable cause” for a search based on a smell of marijuana, but in which the officer was lawfully in a position to detect it, are not controlling. Lower v. State, 348 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
. In much more exacerbated situations involving heavily weighted motor vehicles stopped in the dead of the night near border points in areas of known smuggling activity, the federal courts have apparently uniformly held stops and detentions to be constitutionally unjustified. United States v. Frisbie, 550 F. 2d 335 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Olivares, 496 F. 2d 657 (5th Cir. 1974).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Doyle, 615 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…v. State, 469 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (detention based on bare suspicion of criminal activity); Carter v. State, 454 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (an investigatory detention without founded or reasonable suspicion); [*874] Romanello v. State, 365 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (detention based on mere curiosity of officers); Currens v. State, 363 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (approaching vehicle and ordering an occupant out without founded or reasonable suspicion); Harris v. State, 352 So. 2d 1269 (…
-
State v. Tamberlane David Moody, 578 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…judge determined that Moody’s detention was not based on reasonable suspicion and suppressed the evidence. We agree that this was a detention and not merely a street encounter and further agree that it was improper. As stated in Romanello v. State, 365 So. 2d 220, 221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978): [T]he officers had only a “hunch” (although a good one as it turned out), that is, a “bare” or “unfounded” suspicion that something was wrong, which is clearly not sufficient to validate a stop and detention. Perhaps carr…
-
State v. Doyle, 409 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…lling prophecy is nothing more or less than a hunch which is hardly sufficient for a stop. His observation, after the vessel stopped at his command, that the bow of the vessel went down, even if a suspicious circumstance, but see Romanello v. State, 365 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), and his detection of the smell of marijuana derive from and are tainted by the stop, Cacace v. State, 379 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Romanello v. State, supra. . The trial court’s suppression order refers to the stopped v…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lewis v. State, 337 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- United States v. Frisbie, 550 F.2d 335 (5th Cir. 1977)
- Miranda v. State, 354 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Currens v. State, 363 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Whitley v. State, 349 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Foster v. State, 348 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Lower v. State, 348 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- United States v. Amalia Olivares, 496 F.2d 657 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Tamburro v. State, 343 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)