THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM ROBERTS, 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 from a suppression order that excluded drugs found in defendant Roberts's luggage at an Amtrak station. The trial court suppressed the evidence because although Roberts consented to a narcotics dog sniff, he did not consent to the movement of his bags from the platform to the baggage area. The appellate court reversed, holding that the movement of luggage to facilitate a consensual sniff does not implicate Fourth Amendment protections.
The movement of baggage from one part of a station to another to facilitate a consensual sniff does not offend the defendant's reasonable expectations regarding the location of his property and thus does not implicate Fourth Amendment protections. The court reversed the suppression order because the movement was merely incidental to the consensual sniff process.
[1] A police dog's sniff of luggage, to which the owner has consented, does not implicate Fourth Amendment protections when the luggage is moved a short distance within a pub…
[2] Consent to a narcotics dog sniff of luggage does not preclude the movement of the luggage to a nearby location for the purpose of conducting the sniff.
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
The core holding establishing that movement of luggage to facilitate a consensual sniff does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 9, 1981, at Miami's Amtrak station, Officer McGavock approached Roberts who possessed two pieces of baggage and a briefcase. Roberts validl…
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 Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The state appeals1 from an order suppressing the quaaludes and cocaine discovered in the defendant’s luggage at the Miami Amtrak station upon the execution of a warrant secured after a positive alert by a police narcotics dog.2 The court found that although Roberts had validly consented to the sniff itself,3 he had not agreed to the movement of the bags from the platform where he had been stopped to the baggage area where the sniff was actually conducted. We reverse on the ground that upon the defendant’s consent to the sniff, cf. Sizemore v. State, 390 So. 2d 401 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), review denied, 399 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1981), the movement from one part of the station to another, which was employed simply to facilitate the process, did not offend his reasonable expectations as to the location of his property4 and thus did not implicate an interest protected by the fourth amendment. Cavalluzzi v. State, 409 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Goodley, 381 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Reversed.
. Pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(c)(1)(B).
. The dispositive findings of the order are as follows.
1. That at the time of the conversation between Officer Robertson McGavock and the Defendant, William Roberts, at the Amtrak Train Station on January 9, 1981, the Defendant had in his possession two pieces of baggage and a briefcase.
2. That although Officer McGavock received a valid consent to subject the Defendant’s luggage to a dog “sniff’ that consent did not extend to the moving of the luggage.
3. That the Defendant was not present at the time of the search by the Customs dog.
4. That the removal of the bags from the immediate possession of the Defendant by Officer McGavock amounted to a seizure of Defendant’s luggage in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
. We note that while the defendant claims error in this determination, we may not consider the contention in this proceeding either by way of cross-appeal (which the defendant correctly did not file), State v. DeConingh, 396 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Clark, 384 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1980), or as an argument that the trial court was “right for the wrong reason.” State v. Pratt, 386 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
. Roberts did not verbally or otherwise affirmatively object to the officer’s taking the luggage to the baggage area. Compare, Cavalluzzi v. State, 409 So. 2d 1108, 1110, n.4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lopez v. State, 638 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 1994)…-appeal upon the authority of State v. Mclnnes. Notwithstanding, the Third and Fourth District Courts of Appeal thereafter rendered several decisions which refused to permit a defendant to cross-appeal under similar circumstances. State v. Roberts, 415 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Ferguson, 405 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. DeConingh, 396 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Clark, 384 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1980). These decisions were premised…
-
State v. Hipolito Barreiro, 432 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ningh, 396 So. 2d 858 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); State v. Clark, 384 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1980), or, more subtly, reach these rulings by holding that the trial court was right for the wrong reasons, State v. Roberts, 415 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Pratt, 386 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The fact that the defendant has a right to have rulings unfavorable to him reviewed on direct appeal at the conclusion of the case not only prevents review of such rulings on t…
-
State v. Bankston, 435 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…s apparent, however, that, since both he and his hand-luggage had already been properly seized, the precise location of either during the period of lawful detention is constitutionally insignificant. Cavalluzzi v. State, supra; see State v. Roberts, 415 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Goodley, 381 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Because the conduct of the officers in effecting and conducting the search and seizure of the defendant was in accordance with the extended form of Terry stop approved in Roy…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Goodley, 381 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- State v. Clark, 384 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Cavalluzzi v. State, 409 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Sizemore v. State, 390 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Pierce v. State, 396 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. DeCONINGH, 396 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. Pratt, 386 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)