ALFREDO CHI, 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.
Court reversed drug convictions where marijuana was found in a fishing boat, holding that the vessel stop lacked reasonable suspicion, the boarding exceeded statutory authority, and the search of the bait box lacked probable cause.
The conviction must be reversed because the stop of the vessel lacked reasonable suspicion, the boarding exceeded statutory authority under 19 U.S.C. § 1581(a), and the search of the bait box lacked probable cause.
[1] A stop of a vessel by Customs Officers requires reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, and absent evidence that a vessel crossed the border into the United States, boa…
[2] A search of a vessel and its contents requires probable cause to believe a crime is being committed, and a search cannot be justified merely because a stop or boarding oc…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChi was convicted on a nolo contendere plea after marijuana was discovered in a bait box on his fishing boat during a search by Customs Officers.…
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 Probable Cause Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Chi was convicted upon his nolo contendere plea in which he preserved his right to appeal the concededly dispositive issue of the propriety of the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress marijuana found in a search of a fishing boat owned 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 United States Code, Section 1581(a) (1980), see State v. Doyle, 409 So. 2d 1168, 1169 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and the border search exception to the probable cause requirement was inapplicable, compare Morales v. State, 407 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); and (3) even if, arguendo, the stop and boarding of the vessel were justified, the subsequent search by ripping the bait box from the deck which revealed the marijuana hidden below was wholly without probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed, State v. Casal, 410 So. 2d 152 (Fla.), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 50, 74 L.Ed.2d 56 (1982).
Reversed and remanded with directions to vacate the convictions and discharge the defendant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Backus v. State, 864 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…a). For the exception to apply, “[tjhere must at least be some artic-ulable facts from which it is reasonable to infer that there was a recent border crossing.” United States v. Garcia, 598 F.Supp. 533, 535-536 (S.D.Fla.1984); see also Chi v. State, 421 So. 2d 670, 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In the case at bar, the evidence supports the trial court’s factual finding that Backus navigated his boat more than three but less than twelve nautical miles from shore. Whether this finding establishes that Backus crossed…
-
Livingston K. Saunders v. State, 758 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…l activity. In support of his position, appellant relies on United States v. Gollwitzer, 697 F. 2d 1357 (11th Cir.1983), Blair v. United States, 665 F. 2d 500 (4th Cir.1981), United States v. Williams, 544 F. 2d 807 (5th Cir.1977), and Chi v. State, 421 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The fallacy of appellant’s argument is that all of the cases he relies upon interpreted the rights of customs officers (and Coast Guard officers acting as agents of the U.S. Customs Service) in enforcing the customs laws of the…
Authorities Cited
- Zeinida Morales v. State, 407 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. Constantino Casal and Omar Garcia, 410 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 1982)
- Graham v. State, 409 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Stevens v. Stevens, 408 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- State v. Silvio P. Zafra, 408 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)