THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
SILVIO P. ZAFRA, 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.
Florida appeals a trial court's rejection of the state's argument that federal customs officers may conduct investigative stops and searches of vessels in inland waters without evidence of border crossing or reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. The court affirmed the trial court's holding that such searches violate the Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirement, regardless of the broad statutory authority granted to customs officers.
The court held that federal customs officers' statutory authority under 19 U.S.C. § 1581(a) is limited by the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. A customs officer may not conduct an investigative stop and subsequent search of a vessel in inland waters without either evidence of a border crossing or its functional equivalent, or prior reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.
[1] The authority granted to customs officers to board and search vessels is limited by the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
[2] A customs officer may not make an investigative stop and search of a vessel in inland waters without evidence of a border crossing or prior reasonable suspicion of illega…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“we join the trial court in rejecting the state's position that the apparently unrestricted authority conferred by the terms of 19 U.S.C. § 1581(a) is not limited by the reasonableness requirement of the fourth amendment”
Establishes the core holding that statutory customs authority is limited by Fourth Amendment protections
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA customs officer conducted an investigative stop and search of a vessel in inland waters. The state argued that the officer's authority under 19 U.S.…
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 Fourth Amendment Reasonableness cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
We join the trial court in rejecting the state’s position that the apparently unrestricted authority conferred by the terms of 19 U.S.C. § 1581(a)1 is not limited by the reasonableness requirement of the fourth amendment and that a customs officer may therefore make an investigative stop and subsequent search of a vessel in inland waters2 even though there is neither (a) evidence of a border crossing or its functional equivalent,3 nor (b) prior reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. It is clear that this contention is incorrect and that, under the stated circumstances, such activity is not constitutionally permissible. United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 652 F. 2d 481, 484 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Guillen-Linares, 643 F. 2d 1054 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. D’Antignac, 628 F. 2d 428, 432-33 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 967, 101 S.Ct. 1485, 67 L.Ed.2d 617 (1981); Morales v. State, 407 So. 2d 321 (Fla.3d DCA 1981) (dictum); Earnest v. State, 293 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); see, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). In the posture in which the case was presented and decided below, we need and do go no further in determining the outcome of this appeal.
Affirmed. .
.§ 1581. Boarding vessels
(a) Any officer of the customs may at any time go on board of any vessel or vehicle at any place in the United States or within the customs waters or, as he may be authorized, within a customs-enforcement area established under the Anti-Smuggling Act, or at any other authorized place, without as well as within his district, and examine the manifest and other documents and papers and examine, inspect, and search the vessel or vehicle and every part thereof and any person, trunk, package, or cargo on board, and to this end may hail and stop such vessel or vehicle, and use all necessary force to compel compliance.
. Compare United States v. Freeman, 579 F. 2d 942 (5th Cir. 1978) (stop and boarding on open waters for document check; subsequent search based on probable cause discovered thereafter); Morales v. State, 407 So. 2d 321 (Fla.3d DCA 1981).
. Compare United States v. Sandler, 644 F. 2d 1163 (5th Cir. 1981); State v. Smith, 399 So. 2d 22 (Fla.3d DCA 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Marzano, 418 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…there is evidence that the vessel has recently crossed the border or there is evidence giving rise to an articulable suspicion that the defendants were engaged in illegal activity. State v. Doyle, 409 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Zafra, 408 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Morales v. State, 407 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Having found a lawful justification for the stop, the trial court erred in requiring proof that the vessel was seen in customs waters. Accordingly, the order of suppression is…
-
CHI v. State, 421 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…[*671] and operated by him. We reverse his convictions upon a holding that (1) there was no evidence giving rise to any reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in illegal activity which justified a stop of the vessel, see State v. Zaira, 408 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); (2) since the vessel was stopped by Customs Officers inside the coastline of the United States and there was no evidence that the vessel had crossed the border into the United States, no boarding was authorized under Title 19 Uni…
-
State v. Silvio P. Zafra, 444 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…Court of the United States PER CURIAM. This cause is before us pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States in Florida v. Zafra, 462 U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 3529, 77 L.Ed.2d 1382 (1983), which vacated our decision in State v. Zafra, 408 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 418 So. 2d 1281 (Fla.1982), and remanded the cause “for further consideration in light of United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S.-[, 103 S.Ct. 2573, 77 L.Ed.2d 22] (1983).” In that decision the Supreme Court he…
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 (11 total)
- United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (U.S. 1975)
- United States v. Braxton Lake Freeman, 579 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Zeinida Morales v. State, 407 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- United States v. Sandler, 644 F.2d 1163 (5th Cir. 1981)
- Castelli v. United States, 450 U.S. 967 (U.S. 1981)
- Mathews v. Hannah, 450 U.S. 967 (U.S. 1981)
- United States v. Auviene D'Antignac, 628 F.2d 428 (5th Cir. 1980)
- United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 652 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1981)
- United States v. Roldan Guillen-Linares, 643 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir. 1981)
- Earnest v. State, 293 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)