Martinez v. State, 80-636
| Decision Date | 28 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-636,80-636 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Richard Frank MARTINEZ a/k/a Rick Hernandez, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Paul Morris of Law Office of Paul Morris, Miami, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Trela J. White and Ondina Felipe, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
The trial court refused to suppress a quantity of cocaine that appellant Martinez had abandoned while fleeing the police after a "drug courier profile" detention at Fort Lauderdale International Airport. Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment of guilty of possession of cocaine 1 upon the ground that the order denying his motion to suppress was erroneous.
The trial judge entered a detailed order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law denying the motion to suppress. In the pertinent parts of that order the court stated:
1. That on about July 28, 1978, the Defendant, Richard Frank Martinez, was arrested at Fort Lauderdale International Airport by special agents of the Broward County Sheriff's Department who were acting initially under the "narcotic courier profile" which had been developed by the Drug Enforcement Administration of the Federal Government, and, subsequently, been employed and adopted by the Broward County Sheriff's Department for use at the Fort Lauderdale International Airport.
2. The Court specifically finds that on or about the day in question, the Defendant presented himself at the Delta Airlines ticket counter, where he stepped in line and obtained a ticket for passage by airline to Tampa, Florida; that he had a shoulder bag as luggage and paid for his ticket in cash; that he was nervous and appeared apprehensive. By looking around, he was "eye-balled" by Officer Roger Julianelli. That, based on the above conditions, the officer and his partner followed the Defendant while he left the Delta Airline ticket counter and proceeded through the airline security electronic baggage checking apparatus and kept looking back at the officers while doing so 3. That, after the luggage passed through the electronic security check and it was picked up by the Defendant, he was approached by the officers who stated to the Defendant that they were police officers investigating narcotics' violations at the airport, and that they wished to speak to him and asked the Defendant for identification.
4. That the Defendant was nervous, upset, began to sweat and was unable to intelligently answer the questions posed by the officers. Further, the Defendant told the officers that his name was Martinez and that he had no identification on him and that the name on the airline ticket was that of Hernandez which was in conflict with that of the Defendant. The ticket held by the Defendant was surrendered at the request of the officers. Clearly, the Defendant did not consent to the initial stop; therefore, the Court considers this a detention.
5. That the Defendant was escorted by officers into a private room. Once in the room, the Defendant attempted to flee by running into a restricted area, causing Detective Julianelli to follow in pursuit of the Defendant.
6. That Detective Julianelli ran after the Defendant and, after a short chase, apprehended the Defendant, who had crawled under a baggage cart. At this time the Defendant removed the cocaine from his leg area and cast it aside.
The trial judge's finding that Martinez was detained is supported by Martinez's testimony that, after the officers took his ticket and searched his shoulder bag with his consent, they asked if he would submit to a body search. He refused because he was in a hurry to catch his plane. When he refused the officers took him downstairs for further questioning. When he asked, "What is going on?" one of the officers told him he was being detained and he was taken by the arm and led downstairs.
In reviewing the order in question, it is necessary for us to determine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson
...reached the issue, some courts have concluded that the profile characteristics do not establish reasonable suspicion, Martinez v. State, 414 So.2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (pre-Royer ); Horvitz v. State, 433 So.2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (post-Royer ). Others have given weight to the drug co......
-
O'Shaughnessy v. State
...N.Y.2d 398, 418 N.Y.S.2d 352, 391 N.E.2d 1329, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 969, 100 S.Ct. 461, 62 L.Ed.2d 383 (1979) with Martinez v. State, 414 So.2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Monahan v. State, 390 So.2d 756 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); United States v. Beck, 602 F.2d 726 (5th Cir. 1979); Commonwealth v.......
-
Horvitz v. State, 82-1508
...in this state and by the United States Supreme Court. See Carpenter v. State, 403 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Martinez v. State, 414 So.2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State v. Grant, 392 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Frost, 374 So.2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); United States v. Mend......
-
Adger v. State, 88-2105
...PER CURIAM. We reverse and hold that the trial court erred in denying the appellant's motion to suppress. See Martinez v. State, 414 So.2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Wallace v. State, 540 So.2d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA ANSTEAD, LETTS and GARRETT, JJ., concur. ...