REINER G. CACACE, 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.
The court held that the conviction must be reversed because the initial stop of the appellant's vessel was improper, requiring suppression of the seized contraband.
Law enforcement officers stopped a boat based on a report and observations of a stain and the boat riding low in the water. After docking the boat for…
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 Possession Of Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of possession of cannabis in excess of 100 pounds. Our study of the record convinces us that the initial stopping of appellant’s vessel was improper thus requiring a reversal of the conviction.
Prompted by a report from the Sheriff’s Office of a suspicious boat run aground in the St. Lucie Inlet, law enforcement officers proceeded to the area, encountered a boat which was moving slowing and stopped it. When the boat was stopped one officer noticed a light brown stain on the gunnel area of the boat, possibly attributable to marijuana. When questioned whether the boat was riding low in the water, the officer testified. “Those boats ride low in the water. The water line was lower than normally of a boat that size.”
After stopping the boat, the officers’ first action was to request the registration. When the operator (who was not the appellant) was unable to produce registration, he was allowed to dock the vessel in order to obtain the document. An officer detected the low odor of marijuana after the boat was docked. The officers then boarded the vessel to conduct a safety check and eventually found the contraband for which appellant was charged. Appellant’s motion to suppress the seized contraband was denied giving rise to this appeal.
The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing demonstrates that the arresting officers did not have a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot at the time they stopped the vessel in which appellant was a passenger. Consequently, any incriminating evidence they later found and seized was subject to suppression.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to grant the appellant’s motion to suppress.
DOWNEY, C. J., and ANSTEAD, J., and TENDRICH, MOIE J. L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lavely v. State, 422 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…ven with the water. The boat had salt spray on it. The boat did not violate any navigational rules and a computer cheek proved negative. These facts simply do not demonstrate a founded suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. See Cacace v. State, 379 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Having fulfilled neither of the requirements of 19 U.S.C. Section 1581(a), the stop was not justified. Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress. We caution that this decision is not applicabl…
-
State v. Doyle, 409 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…s 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 vessel as “the defendants’ vessel.” There is simply no evidence to support that conclusion.…