State v. Rodriguez, 84-1771
| Decision Date | 17 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1771,84-1771 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2165,477 So.2d 1025 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2165, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2389 The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Hugo Cesar RODRIGUEZ, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Henry R. Barksdale, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Rodolfo Sorondo, Jr., Coral Gables, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.
The state appeals an order suppressing cocaine which was seized from Rodriguez's person. It attempts to justify the search on consent and probable cause grounds. We reject both arguments and affirm.
With regard to the consent issue, we note that the trial judge found that Rodriguez's consent was limited to a "feeling" of his boot and did not extend to a seizure of whatever may have been felt. Applying a presumption of correctness and viewing the evidence in a manner most favorable to the trial court's ruling, Johnson v. State, 438 So.2d 774 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1329, 79 L.Ed.2d 724 (1984); State v. Gonzalez, 447 So.2d 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's order on the consent issue.
We reject the state's probable cause contention on a finding that Rodriguez's nervousness and the feeling of a soft object in his boot did not provide probable cause for a seizure of the object and its subsequent search. The case of Palmer v. State, 467 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) is distinguishable because there the defendant's consent led to a viewing of the package which, the trial court found, created probable cause. Here, the trial court found that the scope of the consent was limited to a touching of the boot. Consequently, the removal of the package from the boot, which allowed the officers to view it, was unauthorized. Absent other sufficiently suspicious circumstances, the feeling of something soft does not establish probable cause for a seizure and search of the soft object. 1 Accordingly, the suppression order is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Rodriguez was stopped by members of the narcotics interdiction squad at the Miami International Airport. He agreed to speak with the officers and gave them permission to look into his tote bag advising them, "I don't have anything in there though." The uncontradicted testimony reveals that Rodriguez was sweating profusely, his stomach was palpitating, and his hands were shaking. Detective McGavock asked the defendant if he could feel his boots to see if he had anything in them. The defendant was further advised that he did not have to permit this limited search. The defendant consented to a "feel" of his boots. McGavock thereafter felt through the exterior of one of the boots and, predictably, encountered something other than a foot. McGavock testified that the package inside the boot felt soft and malleable and that such facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cross, 86-2589
...cocaine through the further examination of the object was nothing more than a search incident to a valid arrest. See State v. Rodriguez, 477 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Because the search and seizure were supported by probable cause, I would reverse the suppression Before SCHWARTZ, C.J.,......
-
Doctor v. State
...to provide probable cause since "there are an unlimited number of objects ... which 'feel soft and malleable.' " State v. Rodriguez, 477 So.2d 1025, 1026 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The issue is whether the deputy could reasonably conclude that the bulge contained contraband. In Dunn the offic......
-
Cross v. State
...cocaine through the further examination of the object was nothing more than a search incident to a valid arrest. See State v. Rodriguez, 477 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Cross, 535 So.2d at 286. We agree with this In reaching our conclusion, we are not reversing the finding of the trial j......
-
State v. Thomas, 87-2714
...Included in this category of senses, are "feels" of packages under waistbands, armpit areas and inside boots. See State v. Rodriguez, 477 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). It logically follows then that a police officer may use any of his senses for the purpose of determining whether probable ......