State v. Bell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Bell

483 So. 2d 66, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 326, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6171

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 4, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1046

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 483 So. 2d 66 (State v. Bell) 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

State v. Bell, 483 So. 2d 66, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 326, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6171 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order suppressing cocaine seized from the defendant’s luggage upon holdings that (1) the undisputed evidence in this case does not' support the trial court’s finding that the temporary detention of the defendant went beyond the narrow authority given the police by United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983), where the evidence shows that the police at all times diligently pursued their investigation and actually detained the defendant no more than twenty minutes; and (2) even if, arguendo, the detention of the defendant exceeded that allowed by Place, the police, independent of this detention, were possessed of all the information necessary to locate the defendant’s checked luggage to have it sniffed by one of their cocaine detecting dogs and, therefore, would have discovered this evidence without exploitation of any illegality. See State v. Ricano, 393 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA), appeal dismissed, 402 So.2d 612 (Fla.1981); State v. Mosier, 392 So.2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order suppressing cocaine seized from the defendant’s luggage upon holdings that (1) the undisputed evidence in this case does not' support the trial court’s finding that the temporary detention of the defendant went beyond the narrow authority given the police by United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983), where the evidence shows that the police at all times diligently pursued their investigation and actually detained the defendant no more than twenty minutes; and (2) even if, arguendo, the detention of the defendant exceeded that allowed by Place, the police, independent of this detention, were possessed of all the information necessary to locate the defendant’s checked luggage to have it sniffed by one of their cocaine detecting dogs and, therefore, would have discovered this evidence without exploitation of any illegality. See State v. Ricano, 393 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA), appeal dismissed, 402 So.2d 612 (Fla.1981); State v. Mosier, 392 So.2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

483 So. 2d 66, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 326, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bell-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack