LELAND WAYNE HARPOLD AND THOMAS HINZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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.
Police may conduct a dog sniff of luggage during a stop based on founded suspicion without requiring probable cause, and a positive alert from a qualified dog provides probable cause for a warrant-based search.
[1] A dog sniff of luggage does not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and therefore does not require probable cause as a predicate, though a posi…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 dog sniff itself was not a search requiring a showing of probable cause”
The court held that a dog sniff does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment and therefore does not require probable cause as a predicate.
Defendants Harpold and Hinz were stopped by police outside Miami International Airport terminal while carrying a gray suitcase; a police dog sniffed t…
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 Drug Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
We affirm the judgments of conviction upon a holding that (1) the police acted with founded suspicion in stopping the defendants outside of the Miami International Airport Terminal, see State v. Mitchell, 377 So. 2d 1006 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); State v. Battleman, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Myles v. State, 374 So. 2d 83 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); and thus the sniff of the gray molded suitcase1 by an officer’s dog during this stop was not tainted by any prior illegality; (2) the dog sniff itself was not a search requiring a showing of probable cause, United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 13, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 2485, 53 L.Ed.2d 538, 550, n. 8 (1977); State v. Goodley, 381 So. 2d 1180 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Mata v. State, 380 So. 2d 1157 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); United States v. Sullivan, 625 F. 2d 9 (4th Cir. 1980); United States v. Bronstein, 521 F. 2d 459 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 918, 98 S.Ct. 1121, 47 L.Ed.2d 324 (1976), and the positive alert given by the concededly qualified dog provided the necessary probable cause required for the search of this suitcase pursuant to a war [*281] rant thereafter obtained, State v. Goodley, supra; and (3) notwithstanding that the trial court denied the defendants’ suppression motion on a finding that the confrontation between the police officers and the defendants was a mere encounter or contact, not requiring founded suspicion, see State v. Price, 363 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); United States v. Wylie, 569 F. 2d 62. (D.C.Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 944, 98 S.Ct. 1527, 55 L.Ed.2d 542 (1978), the ruling will be upheld for the reasons stated in this opinion, see, Postell v. State, 383 So. 2d 1159 (Fla.3d DCA 1980).2
Affirmed.
. Only this gray molded suitcase contained contraband. Hinz (already under surveillance) removed it from the baggage carousel when the defendants arrived in Miami from Detroit earlier in the day. It remained with Hinz in the waiting taxicab when Harpold paid a quick visit to a Holiday Inn. It remained with Hinz when the taxicab dropped Harpold at the Arrowhead Hotel. Hinz took it with him into a residence where he remained for about five hours. Hinz exited the residence with the suitcase when Harpold picked him up ih another cab for their return trip to the airport. It was Hinz who carried the suitcase towards the airport when the defendants met up with the police officer. The undisputed testimony is that Harpold was never seen in possession of this suitcase. We do not, however, concern ourselves with the fact that although the dog sniff provided probable cause for the arrest of Hinz and the seizure of the suitcase, no probable cause existed for the arrest of Harpold. Harpold’s luggage was searched after his arrest, but no contraband was found therein.
Harpold’s lack of possession became the subject of a sworn motion to dismiss, which, however, Harpold later abandoned. After the trial court denied the motion to suppress, both defendants entered nolo contendere pleas, reserving only the right to appeal the suppression ruling. By his nolo contendere plea, Harpold conceded the charge in the information that he . possessed (presumably, constructively) the contraband found in the suitcase.
. Our holding assumes, without deciding, that a stop occurred. The trial court based its mere encounter finding on the following evidence. Hinz approached the police officer, who was walking towards the terminal. Hinz engaged him in conversation about the officer’s dog. Hinz claimed he raised dogs, knew quite a bit about them, and commented on the beauty of the dog as the officer, dog and the two defendants walked along. They continued to chat innocuously until they reached the terminal sidewalk where the officer identified himself, showed the defendants his badge, and asked them “would they mind showing [him] some identification?” The defendants handed the officer their drivers’ licenses, and within seconds, the dog gave a positive alert to the presence of narcotics within the suitcase Hinz had set down.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Foster, 390 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…earch of Foster’s person revealed a bag of cocaine in each sock.1 The state appeals from a suppression order. We reverse. In general, a trained narcotics dog’s “alert” on luggage constitutes probable cause for a subsequent arrest. Harpold v. State, 389 So. 2d 279 (1980); State v. Good- [*470] ley, 381 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Whether, in this particular case, Le Dur’s “alert” furnished probable cause for Foster’s arrest depends upon several factors succinctly gathered at 13 San Diego L.Rev. 410, 416-1…
-
Cavalluzzi v. State, 409 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…supra, or, as in the present case, from the baggage area to the concourse of the airport 5; (3) the dog sniff of the suitcase after its removal from the baggage area was not a search, State v. Ricano, supra; State v. Mosier, supra; Harpold v. State, 389 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); State v. Goodley, supra, and the dog’s “alert” on the suitcase provided probable cause to open it and search its contents, Harpold v. State, supra; State v. Goodley, supra. Affirmed. .It appears that the state and the court und…
-
State v. Bankston, 435 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ining him and his luggage while they attempted to verify or dispel their suspicions in a manner that did not exceed the limits of an investigative detention. [e.s.] [*271] - U.S. at -, 103 S.Ct. at 1326, 75 L.Ed.2d at 239. See also Harpold v. State, 389 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 397 So. 2d 777 (Fla.1981); Myles v. State, 374 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); compare Horvitz v. State, 433 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). 2. Having thus properly restrained the defendant, the police then, with asto…
Authorities Cited (16 total)
- United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1977)
- Ternes v. North Dakota, 435 U.S. 944 (U.S. 1978)
- Black v. United States, 435 U.S. 944 (U.S. 1978)
- United States v. Wylie, 569 F.2d 62 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
- United States v. Bronstein, 521 F.2d 459 (2d Cir. 1975)
- Williams v. United States, 424 U.S. 918 (U.S. 1976)
- Archer v. United States, 424 U.S. 918 (U.S. 1976)
- Eve Postell v. State, 383 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- State v. Goodley, 381 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- State v. Battleman, 374 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)