MICHAEL MONAHAN, APPELLANT,
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.
Michael Monahan appealed his conviction for drug possession after officers seized cocaine from a suitcase without a warrant. The court held that the initial stop was based solely on bare suspicion, the subsequent arrest was invalid, and the suitcase was not abandoned property, requiring reversal and discharge.
The court held that the initial stop was based on bare suspicion insufficient for seizure, the arrest was invalid because it was predicated only on Monahan's nervousness and refusal to consent to the search, and the suitcase was not abandoned property. Evidence seized as a result of the illegal arrest should have been suppressed.
[1] A seizure of a person based solely on a drug courier profile observation and general nervousness, without more, does not constitute a reasonable basis for the seizure.
[2] An arrest based on a suspect's nervousness and a lack of consent to search luggage is insufficient to establish probable cause.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 initial stop of Monahan was based solely on the observation that he was looking around before entering the terminal building and continued to do so while checking his suitcase. The officers had nothing more than bare suspicion which, without his consent, would not have constituted a reasonable basis for the seizure of his person.”
Establishes that the initial stop lacked constitutional justification as it was based only on bare suspicion without consent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers at Miami International Airport approached Monahan based on the "drug courier profile" after observing him looking around before entering the …
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 Motion To Suppress Tangible Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
CHAPPELL, BILL G., Associate Judge.
Monahan appeals his conviction following a trial before the Court without a jury and challenges the denial of a motion to suppress tangible evidence, to-wit: cocaine, seized without a warrant.
Officers McGavock and Magdalena of the Dade County Public Safety Department were on duty at Miami International Airport randomly looking for persons who matched the “drug courier profile.” Mona-han was first observed just before he entered the terminal building and surveillance continued while he checked a bag and started walking to the concourse. The officers walked up beside him and asked Monahan if they could talk to him. Monahan agreed, and upon the officers’ request, he produced his driver’s license and his airline ticket, both bearing his name. Detective Magdalena stated that they were concerned that the contents of his luggage might contain narcotics and asked Monahan if he would object to their looking in his luggage. He replied that he didn’t mind the officers looking, but he had already checked the larger bag with the airline. Officer McGa-vock testified that Monahan said it would be all right to go get the bag from the airline which Defendant denied. The tote bag being carried by Monahan was searched and Detective Magdalena appeared with the suitcase he retrieved from the airline. Monahan denied that the suitcase was his whereupon the officers informed Monahan that he was being detained, advised him of his rights and handcuffed him. The officers advised Monahan that they intended looking into the suitcase, considering it to be abandoned property. They transported Monahan to the police station at the west side of the airport where the suitcase was forced open and found to contain packets of cocaine.
It is not necessary in this case to review the cases on temporary “drug courier profile” stops in airports.1
The initial stop of Monahan was based solely on the observation that he was looking around before entering the terminal building and continued to do so while checking his suitcase. The officers had nothing more than bare suspicion which, without his consent, would not have constituted a reasonable basis for the seizure of his person.2
Monahan produced identification which coincided with the name on his airline ticket, and he consented to a fruitless search of the tote bag which he was carrying. Subsequently, he was placed under arrest when he disclaimed ownership of the suitcase retrieved from the airline by Officer Magdalena. At this point, the officers based their actions only upon Monahan’s nervousness and a lack of consent to search the suitcase, obviously insufficient to establish probable cause for the arrest, thus making the arrest invalid. Evidence seized as a result of such illegal arrest should have been suppressed.
The State argues that Monahan abandoned the suitcase when he disclaimed ownership, thereby justifying its search without the necessity of a warrant. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we find no merit to the argument that the suitcase was “abandoned” property. See, Reid. v. Georgia, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980); Earnest v. State, 293 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to discharge the Defendant.
Reversed and remanded.
. Royer v. State, 389 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) and cases cited therein.
. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Mullins v. State, 366 So. 2d 1162 (Fla.1978).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Brown, 412 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…lbs. of Cocaine was found therein.” (Emphasis added.) Based upon those findings the trial judge held that Brown had standing to contest the search. He also found any consent given by Brown was involuntary. Thereupon, relying upon Monahan v. State, 390 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), the trial court suppressed the contraband found in the suitcase in question. The State contends that the trial court erred when it found that appellee had a legitimate expectation of privacy in luggage he abandoned. We agree wit…
-
O'Shaughnessy v. State, 420 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…, 368 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); People v. Boodle, 47 N.Y.2d 398, 418 N.Y.S.2d 352, 391 N.E. 2d 1329, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 969, 100 S.Ct. 461, 62 L.Ed.2d 383 (1979) with Martinez v. State, 414 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Monahan v. State, 390 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); United States v. Beck, 602 F. 2d 726 (5th Cir. 1979); Commonwealth v. Harris, 491 Pa. 402, 421 A. 2d 199 (1980); Commonwealth v. Barnett, 484 Pa. 211, 398 A. 2d 1019 (1979); Commonwealth v. Jeffries, 454 Pa. 320, 311 A. 2d 914 (1…
-
A.G. v. State, 562 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ishable authority of State v. Oliver, 368 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. dismissed, 383 So. 2d 1200 (Fla.1980), and State v. Perez, 15 F.L.W. D1355, No. 89-2024, — So. 2d - (Fla. 3d DCA May 15, 1990) (harmonizing Oliver with Monahan v. State, 390 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 399 So. 2d 1146 (Fla.1981)), we affirm. As we did in Perez, we certify express and direct conflict with Spann v. State, 529 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1980)
- Mullins v. State, 366 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1978)
- Royer v. State, 389 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Earnest v. State, 293 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)