STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BOBBY BULLOCK, 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 appealed a trial court order suppressing narcotics evidence obtained from defendant Bullock at an Amtrak station. The appellate court reversed, holding that the initial police detention was a reasonable Terry stop based on suspicious circumstances, the dog sniff of luggage was constitutional, and the subsequent search was based on valid consent untainted by any illegal arrest.
The court held that: (1) defendant was temporarily detained, not arrested; (2) the detention was constitutionally reasonable based on reasonable suspicion; (3) seizure of luggage for a dog sniff was reasonable; (4) the positive alert provided probable cause for arrest; and (5) defendant's subsequent consent to search was voluntary and untainted by any prior illegality.
[1] A temporary detention by police is constitutionally reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if based on reasonable suspicion.
[2] Reasonable suspicion for a temporary detention may be established by factors including a suspect traveling under an assumed name, denying ownership of luggage previously…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the defendant, contrary to the trial court's conclusion, was not under arrest at the time he and the narcotics officer herein went into the lobby area of the Amtrak station, but, at worst, was merely being temporarily detained by the police”
Establishes the court's key distinction that defendant was detained, not arrested, which affects the Fourth Amendment analysis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA narcotics officer encountered defendant Bullock at an Amtrak station lobby. Bullock was traveling under an assumed name, denied ownership of luggage…
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 Canine Sniff cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order under review, which suppresses certain physical evidence seized from the defendant, is reversed upon a holding that: (1) the defendant, contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, was not under arrest at the time he and the narcotics officer herein went into the lobby area of the Amtrak station, but, at worst, was merely being temporarily detained by the police, see Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado, — U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980); Login v. State, 394 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), (2) this temporary detention was constitutionally reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as it was based on a reasonable suspicion, to wit: (a) the defendant was traveling under an assumed name, (b) the defendant denied that the luggage in question was his, although he had been previously observed by the police arriving at the station in a taxicab in possession of the luggage, (c) the defendant claimed that someone else present nearby owned the luggage, although no one else was in the lobby area of the station, and (d) the defendant was extremely nervous during his consensual encounter with the police, see Florida v. Rodriguez, — U.S. —, 105 S.Ct. 308, 83 L.Ed.2d 165 (1984), (3) the temporary seizure of the defendant’s luggage for a narcotics “dog sniff” was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it was based on a reasonable suspicion, to wit: the stated factors in subsection 2 above, see State v. Taylor, 446 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); State v. Bankston, 435 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 104 S.Ct. 1273, 79 L.Ed.2d 678 (1984); Mata v. State, 380 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 389 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1980), (4) the “dog sniff” of the defendant’s luggage took place almost immediately, resulting in a positive alert by the dog on the luggage which gave the police probable cause to arrest the defendant at that point, State v. Toro, 422 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Foster, 390 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and (5) the defendant thereafter gave a voluntary consent to the police to search his luggage which, contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, was untainted by any prior illegal arrest of the defendant, thereby rendering the subsequent warrant-less search of the defendant’s luggage constitutionally reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, see Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973).
The order under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Taylor, 826 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…), review denied, 520 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1988) (nervousness of driver plus high drug area plus nicer car than normally seen in surroundings plus seeing person hanging into car who fled at approach of officer equals founded suspicion); State v. Bullock, 460 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (nervousness during consensual encounter, travel under assumed name and clearly incorrect denial of possession of luggage created founded suspicion). .Officer Malone’s testimony at her deposition contradicted her testimony at the…
-
State v. Brown, 616 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…), review denied, 520 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1988) (nervousness of driver plus high drug area plus nicer car than normally seen in surroundings plus seeing person hanging into car who fled at approach of officer equals founded suspicion); State v. Bullock, 460 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (nervousness during consensual encounter plus travel under assumed name plus clearly incorrect denial of possession of luggage equaled founded suspicion); also cf. State v. Arnold, 475 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (nervousness pl…
-
Crosby v. State, 492 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…g. The fact that the defendant Crosby missed his train as a result of the detention cannot convert same into an arrest. Login v. State, 394 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Ramos, 378 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); see also State v. Bullock, 460 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Second, the police had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify the temporary detention, to wit: the defendant was travelling under an assumed name, was extremely nervous and physically shaking prior to…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980)
- Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (U.S. 1984)
- Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1984)
- Login v. State, 394 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Mata v. State, 380 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- State v. Foster, 390 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- State v. Bankston, 435 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- State v. Toro, 422 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Browning v. Freeman, 446 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)