State v. Houpt, 2
| Decision Date | 23 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 821 P.2d 211,169 Ariz. 550 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. James C. HOUPT, Appellee. 91-0038 |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
On August 26, 1990 at 10:19 p.m., Officer Phillip Young of the Tucson Airport Authority Police received information from a "reliable source," inferentially an American Airlines ticket agent, that defendant had just checked an unusually heavy suitcase while purchasing for cash a ticket to Louisville, Kentucky. Officer Young examined the bag, a large black nylon suitcase weighing twenty-six pounds, and another officer called for a narcotics detection dog. He then went to the concourse where defendant was waiting to board his flight. Defendant, Young testified, appeared extremely nervous. At 10:43 p.m., Young approached defendant, told him he was conducting a narcotics investigation, gave him Miranda warnings, and asked to see his ticket and identification. At 10:47, Young was told that the detection dog had alerted when examining defendant's suitcase. Defendant was arrested. His suitcase was searched pursuant to a warrant and twenty-six pounds of marijuana was recovered. That marijuana was suppressed by the trial court because there was not reasonable suspicion to stop defendant for inquiry. While we agree that there was not reasonable suspicion, we reverse the trial court's order because the discovery of the marijuana was not the result of anything learned during the illegal stop.
The state's argument on appeal that defendant's conduct in purchasing an airline ticket for cash, checking in a twenty-six pound suitcase, and to an officer, appearing nervous, created a reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved in a narcotics transaction is unsupported by any case remotely on point. Those facts are plainly insufficient to authorize a detention. See United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989); Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980).
Reasonable suspicion, however, as the trial court recognized, is not necessary before agents may use a narcotics detection dog, or other techniques, to examine a suitcase while it is being held by airline personnel so long as that examination does not meaningfully interfere...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Killean
...illegally searched his suitcase by squeezing the air out of it and smelling the air inside. We disagree. In State v. Houpt, 169 Ariz. 550, 551, 821 P.2d 211, 212 (App.1991), Division Two of this court held that "reasonable suspicion ... is not necessary before [officers] may use a narcotics......
-
State v. Martinez-Felix
...clean car, and Canadian citizenship, did not amount to reasonable suspicion for continued detention); State v. Houpt, 169 Ariz. 550, 551, 821 P.2d 211, 212 (App. 1991) (defendant's purchase of airline ticket for cash, heavy suitcase, and extreme nervousness while waiting to board flight did......
-
State v. Magner
...to a suspicion of criminal activity. United States v. Green, 52 F.3d 194, 199 (8th Cir.1995). Compare State v. Houpt, 169 Ariz. 550, 551, 821 P.2d 211, 212 (App.1991) (finding that officer's undetailed, subjective observations that suspect "appeared extremely nervous" along with suspect's p......
-
State v. Millan
...sniff of luggage in a public place does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and State v. Houpt, 169 Ariz. 550, 821 P.2d 211 (App.1991), which held that reasonable suspicion is not required to permit a narcotics dog to sniff luggage. The court found that t......