THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MITCHELL LEWIS BATTLEMAN AND THERESA GARCIA HAYES, APPELLEES
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.
Florida appeals a trial court's order suppressing evidence seized from defendants' luggage at Miami International Airport. The court affirmed the suppression, holding that the initial stop of the defendants was unlawful and that the subsequent seizure and search of their bags lacked probable cause and valid consent.
The court held that the initial stop of the defendant was unlawful because nervousness, prior travel to San Francisco, and cash payment for a ticket do not provide an objective reasonable basis for belief that a crime was being, had been, or would be committed. The subsequent search of the bags was therefore illegal as it lacked a warrant, probable cause, and valid consent.
[1] An appellate court must accept a trial judge's findings of fact on a motion to suppress if the record contains evidence to support those findings.
[2] A police stop for investigation requires officers to articulate an objective, reasonable basis for believing that a crime has been, will be, or is being committed.
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 trial judge's conclusion that these facts were not sufficient to meet the test that the police must be able to articulate an objective reasonable basis for belief that a crime has been, will be, or is being committed is supported by applicable law”
Establishes the legal standard for justifying an investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment and explains why nervousness, prior travel, and cash payment are insufficient
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDetectives stopped defendant Battleman as he proceeded to his plane at Miami International Airport and interrogated him. Two suitcases he had checked …
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 Terry Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the State from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence seized by officers from the defendants’ suitcases and a handbag at the Miami International Airport. The trial judge set out extensive findings of fact in his order entered at the conclusion of all the evidence at the hearing on the motion to suppress. These findings are: (1) that the initial stop of the defendants was unlawful; (2) that the bags were seized prior to arrest without probable cause. He thereupon held that the subsequent search was without warrant and without consent and, therefore, illegal. On this appeal, the State seeks reversal as to both defendants upon argument (1) that the detectives’ initial contact did not amount to a stop and, therefore, was not unreasonable; (2) that the 15-minute detention of the two suitcases while investigation was made was not unreasonable.
In reviewing the findings of a trial judge on a motion to suppress, the findings must be accepted by the appellate court if the record reveals evidence to support the findings. Rodriguez v. State, 189 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Wigfall v. State, 323 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
Reviewing the record in the instant case, we believe that the trial judge had an evidentiary base for his findings. The initial contact of the detectives was with defendant Battleman. He was stopped as he proceeded to his plane and interrogated. At the same time, two suitcases that he had checked were removed from the conveyor to the baggage loading platform. The State suggests that the stop for investigation was justified by the fact that Battleman seemed nervous; he had arrived two days previously from San Francisco with one of the same bags; and his ticket showed that he had paid for it in cash. The trial judge’s conclusion that these facts were not sufficient to meet the test that the police must be able to articulate an objective reasonable basis for belief that a crime has been, will be, or is being committed is supported by applicable law. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1969); U. S. v. Ballard, 573 F. 2d 913 (5th Cir. 1978).
Having determined that the initial stop was illegal, the trial judge did not need to go further unless some exception to the search warrant rule was advanced. Mullins v. State, 366 So. 2d 1162 (Fla.1978). Cf. State v. Bisbee, 367 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). See also Taylor v. State, 355 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). In the instant case, the State has argued that later consent was given for the baggage search. The evidence on this point is in sharp conflict. The trial judge believed the testimony of co-defendant Hayes that consent was not given, and we cannot say that the trial judge’s finding is unreasonable.
We conclude that the State has failed to show error on this record and, therefore, the order is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (32 total)
-
State v. Steinbrecher, 409 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…, the determination of the trial court will not be disturbed. See, e.g., State v. Phillipe, 402 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Roberts v. State, 390 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) pet. for rev. dismissed, 402 So. 2d 612 (Fla.1981); State v. Battleman, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Cf. United States v. Llinas, 603 F. 2d 506 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1079, 100 S.Ct. 1030, 62 L.Ed.2d 762 (1980) (applying federal law that trustworthiness of tape recording is left to sound discretion of trial judg…
-
Royer v. State, 389 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…United States v. Buenaventura-Ariza, 615 F. 2d 37 (2d Cir. 1980); United States v. Ballard, 573 F. 2d 913 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. McCaleb, 552 F. 2d 717 (6th Cir. 1977); also see State v. Key, 375 So. 2d 1354 (La.1979); State v. Battleman, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). . See e. g. United States v. Smith, 574 F. 2d 882 (6th Cir. 1978); State v. Mitchell, 377 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); also see Myles v. State, 374 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). . Report of the Select Committee on Narcotics…1 / 3
-
State v. Grant, 392 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…ent officers engaged in narcotics investigations is not sufficiently reliable to justify a stop and that Glover had neither probable cause nor a well founded suspicion to stop Grant. Two of the cases relied upon by the court were State v. Battleman, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979), and State v. Frost, 374 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979). The Frost case would be particularly persuasive in view of the careful analysis made of the various authorities on the subject were it not for the recent case of United Sta…
Previewing 3 of 32 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Taylor v. State, 355 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Mullins v. State, 366 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1978)
- United States v. Ballard, 573 F.2d 913 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Onelio Garcia Rodriquez v. State, 189 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Sautter v. Victory Auto Rental Corp., 323 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- State v. Bisbee, 367 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)