Baston v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Baston v. State

436 So. 2d 1092, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22804

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 6, 1983

DocketNo. 83-159

StatusPublished

This text of 436 So. 2d 1092 (Baston v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baston v. State, 436 So. 2d 1092, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22804 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

We affirm the defendant’s conviction for possession of cannabis entered upon his nolo contendere plea reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Even assuming, arguendo, that (a) the trained dog’s alert on the defendant’s suitcase, which provided adequate probable cause for the seizure of the suitcase, occurred after the scheduled departure of Ba-ston’s flight, and (b) there was no founded suspicion to justify a limited detention of the suitcase, see Florida v. Royer, -U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983), there is not the slightest evidence in the record before us to show that any delay in the plane’s departure was brought about by state action so as to convert the removal of the suitcase from the baggage cart, an otherwise de minimis intrusion, either into a detention without founded suspicion or a seizure without probable cause. See State v. Mosier, 392 So.2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

We affirm the defendant’s conviction for possession of cannabis entered upon his nolo contendere plea reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Even assuming, arguendo, that (a) the trained dog’s alert on the defendant’s suitcase, which provided adequate probable cause for the seizure of the suitcase, occurred after the scheduled departure of Ba-ston’s flight, and (b) there was no founded suspicion to justify a limited detention of the suitcase, see Florida v. Royer, -U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983), there is not the slightest evidence in the record before us to show that any delay in the plane’s departure was brought about by state action so as to convert the removal of the suitcase from the baggage cart, an otherwise de minimis intrusion, either into a detention without founded suspicion or a seizure without probable cause. See State v. Mosier, 392 So.2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 So. 2d 1092, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baston-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack