Carroso v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carroso v. State

437 So. 2d 230, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21709

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 14, 1983

DocketNo. 82-2749

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 437 So. 2d 230 (Carroso 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

Carroso v. State, 437 So. 2d 230, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21709 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants challenge their convictions for possession of marijuana on the ground that they and their luggage were impermissibly detained at the Tampa Airport prior to seizure. Because the stipulated record fails to make clear the length of time which elapsed while the detectives were conducting a canine sniff test, we cannot determine whether the detention was justifiable on reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Place, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983). However, we are convinced that the detailed information furnished by the Harlingen, Texas police sergeant, when coupled with appellants’ suspicious behavior, gave the detectives probable cause to arrest appellants even without a positive dog sniff. See Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959). Hence, the detention and subsequent seizure were not illegal because appellants were already subject to arrest when they were advised that they were going to be detained.

AFFIRMED.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants challenge their convictions for possession of marijuana on the ground that they and their luggage were impermissibly detained at the Tampa Airport prior to seizure. Because the stipulated record fails to make clear the length of time which elapsed while the detectives were conducting a canine sniff test, we cannot determine whether the detention was justifiable on reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Place, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983). However, we are convinced that the detailed information furnished by the Harlingen, Texas police sergeant, when coupled with appellants’ suspicious behavior, gave the detectives probable cause to arrest appellants even without a positive dog sniff. See Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959). Hence, the detention and subsequent seizure were not illegal because appellants were already subject to arrest when they were advised that they were going to be detained.

AFFIRMED.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

437 So. 2d 230, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroso-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack