LARRY CROSBY, 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.
The court held that the temporary detention of the defendant was lawful, and the subsequent search warrant was based on probable cause, making the seized evidence admissible.
[1] A temporary detention is not converted into an arrest merely because the detainee misses a train.
[2] Reasonable suspicion justifying a temporary detention may be based on a combination of factors including traveling under an assumed name, extreme nervousness, and arrivin…
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 intelligencePolice temporarily detained the defendant at an Amtrak station based on his nervous behavior and travel under an assumed name. A narcotics dog alerted…
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 Temporary Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1153] PER CURIAM.
The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is affirmed based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, the defendant Larry Crosby was temporarily detained — but not arrested, as urged — when police officers physically prevented him from boarding a train at the Amtrak station, detained him for five to six minutes, and conducted a “dog sniff,” by a trained narcotics dog, of a shoulder bag he was carrying. 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 being approached by police, and arrived by car at the last minute at the station without saying anything to the person who brought him. State v. Bullock, supra, at 518; State v. Taylor, 446 So. 2d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); State v. Bankston, 435 So. 2d 269, 270 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1022, 104 S.Ct. 1273, 79 L.Ed.2d 678 (1984); see also Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 502, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1326-27, 75 L.Ed.2d 229, 239 (1983); State v. Milwood, 430 So. 2d 563, 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Third, the police had probable cause to believe that narcotics were in the defendant’s shoulder bag after the narcotics dog affirmatively alerted on the bag, and, consequently, the search warrant subsequently issued by the magistrate was based on probable cause as it was issued on an affidavit which set forth the above-stated facts. The cocaine seized from the defendant’s shoulder bag by police pursuant to the search warrant was therefore admissible in evidence. State v. Goodley, 381 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Mata v. State, 380 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for review denied, 389 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1980).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Siluk, 567 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…ouble hearsay from an unknown informant. An order was entered suppressing the contents of the luggage. It is well established that an “alert” by a properly trained police dog will provide probable cause for a subsequent search. See Crosby v. State, 492 So. 2d 1152, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Vetter v. State, 395 So. 2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We do not accept the argument that the failure of the local narcotics dog to “alert” to the luggage neutralized the probable cause flowing from the alert in Houston…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983)
- Login v. State, 394 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. Goodley, 381 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Paul v. United States, 465 U.S. 1022 (U.S. 1984)
- Am. Indus., Ltd. v. Intermodal Cargo Servs., Inc., 465 U.S. 1022 (U.S. 1984)
- Mata v. State, 380 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- State v. Raunel Ramos, 378 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State v. Milwood, 430 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- State v. Bankston, 435 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- State v. Bullock, 460 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)