THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
KENT CHARLES TAYLOR, 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.
This case concerns whether law enforcement had sufficient "articula-ble suspicion" to stop a traveler at an airport and conduct a dog sniff of his luggage. The appellate court found that the officers did have such suspicion, reversing a lower court's suppression of evidence.
Yes, the court found that the officers had articulable suspicion to stop the appellant and conduct a dog sniff of his luggage.
[1] An articulable suspicion exists when law enforcement officers observe a defendant purchasing a ticket with an open return, paying in cash, and filling out baggage tags wi…
[2] Law enforcement officers may conduct a dog sniff of luggage when they have articulable suspicion to stop the individual.
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“Finding that there was an “articula-ble suspicion” for the officers to stop the appellant and incident thereto, to conduct a “dog sniff” of his luggage at the Miami International Airport, we reverse the order granting the motion to suppress the contraband discovered and return the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.”
This quote states the court's conclusion regarding articulable suspicion and the resulting reversal of the suppression order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers observed the defendant purchasing a ticket at Miami International Airport, moving heavy luggage, and purchasing a one-way ticket with cash, l…
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 Articulable Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant was initially observed, by two lav/ enforcement officers, purchasing a ticket at Miami International Airport. The officers watched him move two extremely heavy pieces of luggage to the baggage well of the ticket counter. The defendant was overheard purchasing a round trip ticket to San Francisco with an open return. He seemed nervous and filled out the baggage identification tags with the name K. Charles leaving the tag void of any address or any other writing. He paid for his ticket in cash. When the defendant left the ticket counter he was stopped by the officers who identified themselves. The officers asked if he would mind talking to them and he said he did not mind. They asked for his identification and he produced a drivers license with the name Kent Charles Taylor. As the parties talked the defendant became increasingly more nervous. When the officers explained their function at the airport and started talking about narcotics the' defendant became so nervous that he sweated profusely to the point that the perspiration dripped off his chin even though it was cool in the airport. When the defendant refused to permit the officers to search his baggage they informed him they would get a dog to sniff it and if he did not alert that would be the end of it. The defendant said he did not mind. Finding that there was an “articulable suspicion” for the officers to stop the appellant and incident thereto, to conduct a “dog sniff” of his luggage at the Miami International Airport, we reverse the order granting the motion to suppress the contraband discovered and return the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. State v. Bankston, 435 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Mosier, 392 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) on remand 415 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Goodley, 381 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Mata v. State, 380 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Florida v. Royer, — U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983)
- State v. Goodley, 381 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Mata v. State, 380 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- State v. Mosier, 392 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Mosier v. State, 415 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- State v. Bankston, 435 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)