THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MURRAY HERBERT SAYERS AND RICHARD M. ZZIE, APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the trial court erred in suppressing evidence seized from Zzie's warehouse, but correctly suppressed evidence seized from Sayers' person.
[1] A law enforcement agent may reasonably believe that a person engaged in a transaction prospectively involving a large quantity of narcotics and large sums of money is lik…
[2] The fact that a suspect has just passed through airport security, including metal detectors, may be considered by law enforcement in determining whether a belief that the…
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 intelligenceLaw enforcement stopped Sayers, frisked him, and found cocaine. Sayers then made a statement implicating Zzie. Evidence was later seized from Zzie's w…
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 Frisk For Weapons cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
The State appeals from an order granting the defendants’ separate motions to suppress. We affirm the order as to Sayers and reverse the order as to Zzie.
The trial court suppressed the evidence seized from Sayers’ person because it found that, although the investigative stop of Sayers was lawful, there was no reason to believe that Sayers was armed and thus no justification for a frisk for weapons, which, not unusually, disclosed cocaine instead.
The trial court correctly acknowledged that it is not necessary that the agents have direct information that the person to be frisked is armed and that a law enforcement agent may reasonably believe that a person engaged in a transaction prospectively involving a large quantity of narcotics and large sums of money is likely to be armed to protect the drugs, the money, or himself.1 See United States v. Vasquez, 634 F. 2d 41 (2d Cir.1980); United States v. Post, 607 F. 2d 847 (9th Cir.1979); United States v. Oates, 560 F. 2d 45, 62 (2d Cir.1977) (firearms are as much “tools of the trade” to “substantial dealers in narcotics” as other articles of narcotics paraphernalia); United States v. Wiener, 534 F. 2d 15 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 820, 97 S.Ct. 66, 50 L.Ed.2d 80 (1976) (same); United States v. Santana, 485 F. 2d 365 (2d Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 931, 94 S.Ct. 1444, 39 L.Ed.2d 490 (1974).
Ordinarily, then, the fact that the agents had reliable information that Sayers was flying to Miami to purchase $50,000 worth of cocaine from the co-defendant, Zzie, and that, immediately before the frisk, they had observed Sayers meet briefly with Zzie, would give rise to a reasonable belief that Sayers was armed. But the trial court was free to find, as it did, that where, as here, the agents knew that Sayers had “just stepped off a commercial airline flight in which they have radar detectors and metal detectors and ... had walked through them,” that the agents’ belief that Sayers was armed was not reasonable under these circumstances.
Thus, the suppression of the narcotics seized from Sayers’ person must be affirmed.
Zzie’s motion to suppress was directed to narcotics and other items seized from his company’s warehouse pursuant to a search warrant obtained after the unlawful frisk of Sayers. The affidavit for the search warrant included not only allegations concerning the information that the law enforcement officers knew about the impending deal between Sayers and Zzie, but also an allegation that Sayers, in a post-arrest statement to the agents, confirmed that the cocaine seized from him had been purchased from Zzie at the premises to be searched.2 While the trial court correctly concluded that these allegations were sufficient to establish probable cause, it incorrectly concluded that Sayers’ statement, essential to a finding of,probable cause, could not be considered because of the illegality of Sayers’ arrest. Plainly, Zzie has no standing to complain of the frisk and arrest of Sayers, or the illegality of the seizure of narcotics or statements from Sayers. Zzie cannot vicariously assert constitutional rights personal to Sayers. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963).
See also Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); State v. Spencer, 432 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Since Sayers’ statement, standing alone, provided more than ample probable cause for the search of the warehouse,3 the items seized in such search should not have been suppressed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
. This court has held that robbery and kidnapping are foreseeable consequences of a conspiracy to effect a large drug transaction. See Martinez v. State, 413 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
. The agent-affiant's belief that there was more cocaine on the premises stemmed from the fact that the sale to be consummated was 32 ounces of cocaine for $50,000 and that Sayers was arrested with 11 ounces on his person, indicating that he had brought insufficient cash and that .the remainder of the cocaine was still with Zzie in the warehouse.
. Therefore, we need not consider Zzie’s argument that the affidavit contained some knowingly false statements regarding information received from Canadian law enforcement authorities. We note, however, that although the trial court made no specific findings, it was obviously not impressed, nor are we, with the contention that any statement was false or misleading.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Price, 564 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…State, 160 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1964). We first note that in State v. Perkins, 558 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) our sister court observed Numerous cases attest to the propensity for violence inherent in narcotics trafficking. See e.g. State v. Sayers, 459 So. 2d 352, 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (In a drug “transaction prospectively involving a large quantity of narcotics and large sums of money [a participant] is likely to be armed to protect the drugs, the money or himself.”), review denied sub nom. Zzie v. State,…
-
State v. Perkins, 558 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…rt of felony which involves “the use or threat of physical force or violence against an[] individual” as set forth in section 776.08. Numerous cases attest to the propensity for violence inherent in narcotics trafficking. See e.g., State v. Sayers, 459 So. 2d 352, 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (In a drug “transaction prospectively involving a large quantity of narcotics and large sums of money [a participant] is likely to be armed to protect the drugs, the money, or himself.”), review denied sub nom. Zzie v. State,…
-
Renaldo Alexander v. State, 616 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…requirement of reasonableness is met by the sole fact that the person detained is suspected of dealing in a large quantity of [*543] drugs and large sums of money, notwithstanding the implications that may be read from the dicta in State v. Sayers, 459 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. den., Zzie v. State, 471 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1985).3 But even if the standard used by the trial judge in this case were proper, there was no evidence presented that Johnson believed Alexander was armed, or that he suspected him o…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Wong SUN v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978)
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1980)
- United States v. Oates, 560 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1977)
- Harper v. United States, 429 U.S. 820 (U.S. 1976)
- J. Frank Kelly, Inc. v. Swinton, 429 U.S. 820 (U.S. 1976)
- United States v. Wiener, 534 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1976)
- United States v. Santana, 485 F.2d 365 (2d Cir. 1973)
- Semel v. Fed. Supply Co., 415 U.S. 931 (U.S. 1974)
- Martinez v. United States, 415 U.S. 931 (U.S. 1974)