State v. Zafra
| Citation | 408 So.2d 745 |
| Decision Date | 12 January 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-474,81-474 |
| Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Silvio P. ZAFRA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Paul Morris, Rosen, Portela, Bronis, Angueira & Clay and William A. Clay, Miami, for appellee.
Before HUBBART, C. J., and BARKDULL and SCHWARTZ, JJ.
We join the trial court in rejecting the state's position that the apparently unrestricted authority conferred by the terms of 19 U.S.C. § 1581(a) 1 is not limited by the reasonableness requirement of the fourth amendment and that a customs officer may therefore make an investigative stop and subsequent search of a vessel in inland waters 2 even though there is neither (a) evidence of a border crossing or its functional equivalent, 3 nor (b) prior reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. It is clear that this contention is incorrect and that, under the stated circumstances, such activity is not constitutionally permissible. United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 652 F.2d 481, 484 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Guillen-Linares, 643 F.2d 1054 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. D'Antignac, 628 F.2d 428, 432-33 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 967, 101 S.Ct. 1485, 67 L.Ed.2d 617 (1981); Morales v. State, 407 So.2d 321 (Fla.3d DCA 1981) (dictum); Earnest v. State, 293 So.2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); see, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975). In the posture in which the case was presented and decided below, we need and do go no further in determining the outcome of this appeal.
Affirmed.
1 § 1581. Boarding vessels
(a) Any officer of the customs may at any time go on board of any vessel or vehicle at any place in the United States or within the customs waters or, as he may be authorized, within a customs-enforcement area established under the Anti-Smuggling Act, or at any other authorized place, without as well as within his district, and examine the manifest and other documents and papers and examine, inspect, and search the vessel or vehicle and every part thereof and any person, trunk, package, or cargo on board, and to this end may hail and stop such vessel or vehicle, and use all necessary force to compel compliance.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Doyle
...the border, or evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the defendants were engaged in illegal activity, see State v. Zafra, 408 So.2d 745 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Morales v. State, 407 So.2d 321 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). The State concedes, as it must, that there is not a scintilla of eviden......
-
Chi v. State, 82-334
...to any reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in illegal activity which justified a stop of the vessel, see State v. Zafra, 408 So.2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); (2) since the vessel was stopped by Customs Officers inside the coastline of the United States and there was no evidence......
-
Gonzalez-Gonzalez v. State, GONZALEZ-GONZALE
...the conduct the Supreme Court held constitutionally impermissible in State v. Casal, 410 So.2d 152 (Fla.1982). See also State v. Zafra, 408 So.2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (rejecting the state's position that authority conferred by federal statute is not limited by the reasonableness requireme......
- Stevens v. Stevens, 81-357