State v. Smith, 79-2312
| Decision Date | 19 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-2312,79-2312 |
| Citation | 399 So.2d 22 |
| Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Iselene SMITH, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Janet Reno, State Atty. and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. State Atty., for appellant.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.
Is evidence seized without probable cause or reasonable suspicion during a warrantless United States Customs search admissible in a Florida trial court? We hold that such evidence is admissible and reverse the order of suppression entered by the circuit court.
Returning to the United States after a trip to Ecuador defendant Smith landed at the Miami International Airport. A customs official conducting a random check of incoming baggage inspected defendant's train case. Upon opening the case, he detected the odor of glue and then discovered a false bottom under which cocaine was concealed. Defendant was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance, importation of a controlled substance and trafficking.
Following a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, the trial court ruled that State v. Schloss, 341 So.2d 1024 (Fla.3d DCA 1977) required a customs search to be predicated upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Finding no reasonable suspicion, the court suppressed the evidence seized from defendant Smith. On appeal the state, citing 19 U.S.C. § 1582, contends the trial court erred in applying the standard of reasonable suspicion to a border search. Defendant responds that customs officials may search only when deemed necessary or appropriate, 19 C.F.R. § 162.6 (1980), and that even if the search were proper under federal law, states may impose a higher standard. We agree with the argument advanced by the state.
According to 19 U.S.C. § 1582, all persons coming into the United States shall be liable to search.
§ 1582. Search of persons and baggage; regulations
The Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe regulations for the search of persons and baggage and he is authorized to employ female inspectors for the examination and search of persons of their own sex; and all persons coming into the United States from foreign countries shall be liable to detention and search by authorized officers or agents of the Government under such regulations.
In United States v. Schreer, 600 F.2d 5 (3d Cir. 1979), the court contrasted the applicability of 19 U.S.C. § 1582 with 19 U.S.C. § 482, 1 which permits searches at a distance from the border when reasonable cause for suspicion of illegal importation exists. In Scheer the court noted:
The Supreme Court, in United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1972), reviewed the 'longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country.' Id. at 616, 97 S.Ct. at 1979. Concluding its survey, the Court stated:
Border searches, then, from before the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, have been considered to be 'reasonable' by the single fact that the person or item in question had entered into our country from outside. There has never been any additional requirement that the reasonableness of a border search depended on the existence of probable cause. This longstanding recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless 'reasonable' has a history as old as the Fourth Amendment itself. We reaffirm it now.
Id. at 619, 97 S.Ct. at 1980 (footnote omitted). See Torres v. Puerto Rico, 439 U.S. 815, 99 S.Ct. 74, 58 L.Ed.2d 106 (1979). In view of this authority, we join the Fifth and Seventh Circuits in upholding the constitutionality of a search conducted at the border, or equivalent entry point, pursuant to § 1582, notwithstanding the absence of probable cause or even a quantum of individualized suspicion, but merely because the item was entering the United States from abroad. (footnotes omitted).
United States v.Scheer at 7. See United States v. Chaplinski, 579 F.2d 373, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1050, 99 S.Ct. 731, 58 L.Ed. 711 (5th Cir. 1978).
We find no merit in defendant's argument that the State of Florida has imposed a higher standard on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morales v. State, s. 80-248
...93 S.Ct. 2535, 2539-40, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973); I.M. v. State, 400 So.2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and cases collected; State v. Smith, 399 So.2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and cases collected; 19 U.S.C. §§ 1581(a), 1582 A traveler crosses the international border of the United States by vessel at s......
-
People v. Materon
...(People v. Zipkin, supra; see People v. Dworkin, 30 N.Y.2d 706, 332 N.Y.S.2d 645, 283 N.E.2d 620; People v. Mitchell, supra; State v. Smith, 399 So.2d 22 [Fla.]; cf. People v. Marcus, 90 Misc.2d 243, 394 N.Y.S.2d 530). Equally meritless is defendant's claim that she had not cleared through ......
-
State v. Codner
...Florida case that involved a border search at an international airport with a passenger returning to the United States. State v. Smith, 399 So.2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). ...
-
State v. Zafra
...Morales v. State, 407 So.2d 321 (Fla.3d DCA 1981).3 Compare United States v. Sandler, 644 F.2d 1163 (5th Cir. 1981); State v. Smith, 399 So.2d 22 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). ...