State v. Anderson, 85-1658
| Decision Date | 11 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1658,85-1658 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 491 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Bryan Kent ANDERSON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Penny H. Brill, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Craig R. Wilson, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the state from a trial court order holding that the police detention and search of a car the defendant was driving was improper, and that marijuana seized during the search could not be used as evidence against the defendant. We affirm.
Because the trial court's recitation of the facts and legal analysis are in complete accord with prevailing law we approve and adopt the following portions of that order as our opinion herein:
At midday on November 8th, 1984 Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Anthony Caserta was northbound on the Turnpike in order to assist as a backup to Florida Highway Patrolman Kendall. He observed Mr. Anderson driving north and clocked him at 64 miles an hour. He passed him and stopped at the scene where Kendall was stopped. Kendall had the situation in hand so Caserta flagged down Mr. Anderson as he arrived and explained to him that he was going to ticket him for speeding.
A Mr. Powers was a passenger.
The automobile was a Wisconsin vehicle registered to a Richard Johnson or Johnston of Kenosha, Wisconsin. Mr. Anderson himself was from Kenosha and knew the name of the owner but could not tell the Trooper the address of the owner.
The Trooper noted an air valve on the bumper which is used for inflating air shocks. Air shocks are apparently used typically in hauling trailers so as to level out the automobile. The Trooper recalled that he saw air shocks on the car but noticed no trailer or trailer hitch attached to the car. The Trooper also noticed luggage in the rear seat.
Mr. Anderson testified that the Trooper took the automobile keys from him early in the questioning period following the stop.
Trooper Caserta testified that he had a valid stop for unlawful speed; that the driver was not the owner of the vehicle and could not relate the address of the owner although he did know the name of the owner; that the driver appeared nervous; that there were air shocks but no trailer hitch and that there was luggage in the rear of the car. It was his experience that persons hauling contraband in the trunk customarily kept their luggage in the rear seat for easy access to it without the necessity of opening the trunk.
The Trooper told Mr. Anderson and Mr. Powers that they were free to go but that he was going to retain the car for a Deputy Sheriff to visit with search dogs for the purpose of detecting contraband in the trunk. The Trooper had earlier asked permission to search the trunk and that had been declined. They were free to take their luggage if they would permit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brooks
...2d DCA 1992); Blue v. State, 592 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Dunbar v. State, 592 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); State v. Anderson, 479 So.2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).3 See State v. Orozco, 607 So.2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), rev. denied, 614 So.2d 503 (Fla.1993); Rogers v. State, 586 So.2d......
-
State v. Johnson
...involving traffic stops, the drug courier profile has been found insufficient to provide reasonable suspicion. See State v. Anderson, 479 So.2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (drug courier profile characteristics insufficient to provide founded suspicion to justify investigatory detention of suspe......
-
Cresswell v. State
...1081, 1084 (Fla.1987). However, the stop must last no longer than the time it takes to write the traffic citation. State v. Anderson, 479 So.2d 816, 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In this case, Cresswell was detained for approximately forty-five minutes, the time necessary to obtain a narcotics d......
-
Cresswell v. State
...dog to detect contraband in the trunk of the stopped car. Cf. State v. Nugent, 504 So.2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); State v. Anderson, 479 So.2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The question is whether the length of the time involved elevated the detention into an arrest without probable cause, thereb......
-
The Fourth Amendment, canine olfaction, and vehicle stops: time is of the es'scents'.
...justify a suspicionless canine sniff of their vehicle's exterior. Beginning with the seminal "vehicle-sniff" case, State v. Anderson, 479 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), a line of "dog-sniff" cases involving noncriminal traffic stops has emerged. (28) From these cases, a number of principle......