THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIA CARIDAD PEREZ, 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 appeals a trial court's suppression of cocaine evidence seized during an airport security search of a passenger. The appellate court reverses, holding that airport security searches conducted to detect threats to air commerce are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment without requiring probable cause, and the pat-down search here was not exceptionally intrusive.
The court held that airport security searches conducted for the purpose of detecting threats to air commerce are reasonable and do not require probable cause. Because the pat-down search was not exceptionally intrusive (such as a body cavity search), it did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the evidence should not have been suppressed.
[1] Airport security searches are reasonable if conducted solely to discover whether a prospective air passenger poses an immediate threat to air commerce.
[2] The objective of preventing airplane hijacking justifies extensive airport security searches, which do not require probable cause.
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“[S]earches are reasonable if conducted solely for the purpose of discovering whether a prospective air passenger poses an immediate threat to air commerce. Although the initiating purpose of the search is limited to the detection of a would-be hijacker, the search may be extensive because the airline hijacker's weaponry could be any of a number of easily concealed things including plastic explosives or gasoline.”
Establishes the legal standard that airport security searches need not require probable cause when their purpose is preventing hijacking
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaria Caridad Perez, a ticket-carrying airline passenger, triggered a metal detector at an airport security checkpoint. A Wackenhut security officer i…
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.
Defendant Maria Caridad Perez, a ticket-carrying passenger, set off the metal detector at the airport security checkpoint. When a Wackenhut security officer informed the police that Perez “had something under her clothing,” Perez was taken to a private Eastern Airlines office where a female officer patted Perez around her stomach area and felt a bulge; Perez removed a package wrapped in aluminum foil and yellow plastic from under her girdle. The officer cut open the package, observed a substance which appeared to be cocaine, and placed Perez under arrest. Prior to trial, the court granted Perez’s motion to suppress on the ground that the search was overly intrusive. We reverse.
The supreme court has determined that:
[S]earches are reasonable if conducted solely for the purpose of discovering whether a prospective air passenger poses an immediate threat to air commerce. Although the initiating purpose of the search is limited to the detection of a would-be hijacker, the search may be extensive because the airline hijacker’s weaponry could be any of a number of easily concealed things including plastic explosives or gasoline.... So long as the object of the search is prevention of an airplane hijacking, the search is reasonable and proper and does not require probable cause for its foundation.
Shapiro v. State, 390 So. 2d 344, 350 (Fla. 1980) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 982, 101 S.Ct. 1519, 67 L.Ed.2d 818 (1981). In Campanponi v. State, 424 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), this court held that “a security search for weapons and the like of an air traveler is akin to a border search; except for an exceptionally intrusive search (i.e., a body cavity search), where some evidence of wrongdoing might be required, the security airport search does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment.” Campanponi, 424 So. 2d at 166 (citations omitted). See State v. Simpson, 443 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). See also United States v. Skipwith, 482 F. 2d 1272 (5th Cir.1973). Finding no evidence of an exceptionally intrusive search, we reverse the trial court’s order suppressing the seized evidence.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cross v. State, 560 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1990)…er Cross’s arrest was legally irrelevant. As explained by Judge Jorgenson in his original dissenting opinion: It matters not whether the taped object was opened immediately upon its discovery per Detective Facchiano’s account, e.g., State v. Perez, 509 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), or subsequently at the police station following Cross’s arrest as Detective Fernandez testified, e.g., State v. Langer, 516 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), probable cause accrued at the moment of its discovery. Id. at 285 (Jorgen…
-
State v. Cross, 535 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…irrelevant to the issues of whether the search of Cross’s bag and the seizure of the taped object were lawful. It matters not whether the taped object was opened immediately upon its discovery per Detective Facchiano’s account, e.g., State v. Perez, 509 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), or subsequently at the police station following Cross’s arrest as Detective Fernandez testified, e.g., State v. Langer, 516 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), probable cause to open the taped object accrued at the moment of its disco…
-
State v. Maritza Altaerracia Baez, 530 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…upheld airport security checkpoint searches of air travelers and their carry-on luggage in a variety of factual contexts. State v. Merritt, 519 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (search' of person), rev. denied, 525 So. 2d 879 (Fla.1988); State v. Perez, 509 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (search of person); State v. Simpson, 443 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (search of person); State v. Campanponi, 424 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (search of person); Oishi v. State, 400 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 5th DCA) (search of carry-…
Authorities Cited
- Shapiro v. State, 390 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1980)
- United States v. Skipwith, 482 F.2d 1272 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Hanigan v. United States, 450 U.S. 982 (U.S. 1981)
- Spencer v. Howe Richardson Scale Co., 450 U.S. 982 (U.S. 1981)
- State v. Campanponi, 424 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- State v. Simpson, 443 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)