Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 10 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. SS-99,SS-99 |
| Citation | 388 So.2d 286 |
| Parties | James Frank ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Donald G. Nichols, of Dawson, Galant, Maddox, Sulik & Nichols, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Wallace Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion to suppress cocaine seized during an airport search, contending the evidence was the product of an unreasonable search and seizure and therefore inadmissible in evidence. We agree and reverse.
On May 16, 1979, defendant James Frank Robinson disembarked from a plane at the Jacksonville airport. As he was leaving the airport and preparing to get into a taxi, he was a stopped by Officer Anthony Hickson, a Sheriff's detective, who was working the airport narcotics detail that day. Officer Hickson identified himself, told Robinson he wanted to talk to him, and asked Robinson to step back inside the airport terminal. Once inside the terminal, Robinson was asked for some form of identification and his airline ticket. He presented a ticket in the name of "J. Smith" and his driver's license which was issued in his own name. After taking possession of Robinson's driver's license and airline ticket, Officer Hickson searched Robinson's luggage and found cocaine in a brown shaving kit. Officer Hickson testified that Robinson consented to the search. Robinson testified that he asked Officer Hickson for a search warrant and denied consenting to a search of his luggage. Upon finding cocaine, Hickson arrested Robinson, took him to an airport office, and searched the rest of his belongings, turning up more cocaine.
At the suppression hearing, Robinson contended Officer Hickson had neither probable cause nor a reasonable suspicion to justify the initial stop. Robinson further argued he did not consent to a search of his luggage, and, even if there was consent, such consent was tainted by the illegal stop and detention and therefore invalid. The State argued that Officer Hickson had a reasonable, articulable suspicion, based upon his observation of Robinson's behavior in light of the objective criteria of the "drug courier profile" analysis to support the initial stop. 1 The trial court, in denying Robinson's motion to suppress, ruled that there were "sufficient objective facts present to support the reasonable suspicion in the officer's mind that the present defendant was involved in possessing or transporting narcotics" and that defendant consented to a search.
Robinson was convicted for possession of cocaine upon his nolo contendere plea which was entered with the specific reservation that he could appeal to this court the trial court's denial of his pretrial motion to suppress.
The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether the investigatory stop of Robinson was based upon a well-founded, articulable suspicion that he was unlawfully carrying narcotics. In order to effect a lawful investigatory stop of an individual, police officers must have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that the individual is involved in criminal activity. Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979); U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975); State v. Frost, 374 So.2d 593 (Fla.3rd DCA 1979). The transcript of the suppression hearing reveals the following testimony by Officer Hickson on direct examination as to the grounds which he used to justify the initial stop of Robinson:
Q All right, sir. What did you do after you saw the Defendant, James Robinson?
A I alerted Detective Higginbotham to observe Mr. Robinson. And I went downstairs, because I didn't want him to see me. And I went downstairs to the baggage area on the elevator while Detective Higginbotham followed him downstairs.
Q All right. What happened then?
A At that point he went to the luggage area where he picked up a suitcase.
Q And by "he," you mean the Defendant?
A Yes; Mr. Robinson.
Q What happened next?
A After he picked up the suitcase, he attempted to leave the airport. And at that point I advised Detective Higginbotham that we were going to stop Mr. Robinson.
Q All right. At that point, Detective Hickson, other than the prior arrest that you had had for narcotics on Mr. Robinson some two or three years ago, had you received any other knowledge with regard to Mr. Robinson?
A No.
Q Okay. What happened after you advised Detective Higginbotham that you were going to stop him?
A Mr. Robinson then went out the door and was walking toward the taxicab. And I walked up behind him and identified myself and advised him that we wanted to talk to him; would he come back inside into the airport.
Q All right, sir. Why did you stop him, Detective Hickson?
A Well, two reasons: Number One, he was coming from-on a flight from the West Coast, which is one of the flights that we normally watch-what we consider a target city where drugs come into Jacksonville from the West Coast. And, secondly, because of my personal knowledge of Mr. Robinson.
Later, on cross-examination, Officer Hickson testified:
Q Officer Hickson, this particular flight-you say that came in from the West Coast.
Isn't it true that the flight Mr. Robinson was on came from New Orleans?
A If I remember correctly, it made a stop in New Orleans. But the flight originated in the West Coast.
Q All right. Isn't it true that, actually, in New Orleans Mr. Robinson changed a different plane-on a different flight-to proceed on to Orlando and then on to Jacksonville? You checked that out, I guess?
A I think the itinerary on the ticket-J. Smith-it had the flight originated in San Francisco, I believe, to New Orleans to Orlando, I believe. And then it terminated here. So it's a continuing flight.
Q Okay. At the time that Mr. Robinson is coming down the concourse and going down the steps to get his luggage, walking out of the airport and headed toward the cab, you had no information as to where he was coming from; did you?
A The only thing I knew was that he had got off of the flight. And I didn't know which, you know, specific city he was coming from. But I know he got off of that flight.
Q You didn't know if he got off that flight in Orlando?
A At that point I didn't; no.
Q You didn't know if he got off in New Orleans or some other place at that point in time?
A At that point I didn't know; right.
Q All right, sir. And now isn't it true that about 1974 or '75 was the time that you had previously arrested Mr. Robinson, and that that particular case had been dismissed in court?
A I didn't remember the exact date. But, you know, I said two or three years.
But if it was '74, I guess that's when it was.
Q And since that period of time,you have not had occasion to arrest him for anything?
A No; I have not; no, sir.
Q And up until the time that you have arrested him for this particular charge on May 16, '79?
A That's correct.
Q All right. When Mr. Robinson got off the plane and walked down to get his luggage, did you have any reason to believe he was armed?
A No; I did not.
Q Okay. Other than him being on this particular flight, and other than that you had in 1974 or '75-that area-previously had a case relative to him, did you have any reasonable suspicion whatsoever to believe he was violating the law in any way?
A No.
Q Okay. Those are the two things that you based your stopping him on. That is to say, he was on a particular flight, and that you had known him before?
A That's correct.
We conclude that Officer Hickson could not, as a matter of law, have reasonably suspected Robinson of criminal activity under these circumstances. The evidence shows that Officer Hickson stopped Robinson because he had disembarked from a flight which originated in a drug profile target city, but with several intervening stopovers, and because he recalled arresting Robinson several years earlier on a narcotics charge which was subsequently nolle prossed. Officer Hickson stated that he did not even know which city Robinson was coming from at the time of the initial stop. With the exception of Officer Hickson's knowledge of the previous arrest, there is nothing to distinguish Robinson's actions or conduct from that of the general public based upon these facts. See, Reid v. Georgia, --- U.S. ----, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980). Thus, the sole reason Officer Hickson initially stopped Robinson was based upon his prior arrest of Robinson.
Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is protected from arbitrary invasions solely at the unfettered discretion of police officers in the field. Brown v. Texas, supra; U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, supra; Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). We hold that an officer's knowledge of a suspect's previous arrest, standing alone, is insufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a crime may have been or is being committed in order to justify a lawful investigatory stop.
The legality of the initial stop is significant because any consent to search following an unconstitutional stop is presumptively tainted by the illegal stop and hence invalid. Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643 (Fla.1980); Taylor v. State, 355 So.2d 180 (Fla.3rd DCA 1978), cert. denied 361 So.2d 835 (Fla.1978); State v. Frost, supra.
When trying to establish that there was a voluntary consent after an illegal stop, the government has a much heavier burden to carry than when the consent is given after a permissible stop. U.S. v. Ballard, 573 F.2d 913, 916 (5th Cir. 1978); U.S. v. Troutman, 590 F.2d 604 (5th Cir. 1979).
Under these circumstances, the burden is on the State to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that the defendant freely and voluntarily consented to the search, Sagonias v. State, 89 So.2d 252 (Fla.1956),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Avery, 87-0270
...to a founded suspicion which would justify his detention, Ingram v. State, 364 So.2d 821 (Fla. 5th [4th] DCA 1978); Robinson v. State, 388 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Horvitz v. State, 433 So.2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Gorney v. State, 409 So.2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). This opinion is ......
-
State v. Spillner
...United States v. Sandoval, 829 F.Supp. 355, 360 (D.Utah 1993) (mem.), rev'd, 29 F.3d 537, 538 (10th Cir.1994); Robinson v. State, 388 So.2d 286, 290 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980).) Spillner attempted to distinguish State v. Kaleohano, 99 Hawai`i 370, 56 P.3d 138 (2002), by noting that, in contrast......
-
State v. Fuksman
...3d DCA 1985); Restrepo v. State, 438 So.2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); State v. Spencer, 432 So.2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Robinson v. State, 388 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Taylor v. State, 355 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), and one requiring that consent be shown by a preponderance of the ev......
-
People v. Jansen
...that the search was justified, such doubt must be resolved in favor of the defendant whose property was searched. Robinson v. State, 388 So.2d 286 (Fla.App.1980). Although Riese testified that Nauser initially entered the house because of concern over his personal safety, Riese had no knowl......
-
The Exigent Circumstances Exception to the Warrant Requirement
...supra, note 3; McCall v. People, 623 P.2d 397 (Colo. 1981). 6. Jansen, supra, note 3. 7. Id. at 911-12; citing, Robinson v. State, 388 So.2d 286 (Fla.App.1980). 8. People v. Miller, 773 P.2d 1053 (Colo. 1989); McCall, supra, note 5. 9. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967); Miller, supra, n......