State v. Marzano

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Marzano

418 So. 2d 1159, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21488

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 25, 1982

DocketNo. 82-653

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 418 So. 2d 1159 (State v. Marzano) 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. Marzano, 418 So. 2d 1159, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21488 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals an order suppressing physical evidence. We conclude that the trial court misapprehended the appropriate rule of law and, consequently, we reverse.

This case involves the suppression of contraband found aboard a boat. Initially, the trial court ruled that the stop of the vessel was justified because the officers had an articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Subsequently, however, the court reversed its decision and suppressed the evidence on the theory that “an investigatory stop, even when based on a reasonable suspicion of law violation, is illegal unless the vessel was initially seen in customs waters.” We respectfully disagree.

A stop of a vessel may be justified if there is evidence that the vessel has recently crossed the border or there is evidence giving rise to an articulable suspicion that the defendants were engaged in illegal activity. State v. Doyle, 409 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Zafra, 408 So.2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Morales v. State, 407 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Having found a lawful justification for the stop, the trial court erred in requiring proof that the vessel was seen in customs waters. Accordingly, the order of suppression is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DOWNEY, HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals an order suppressing physical evidence. We conclude that the trial court misapprehended the appropriate rule of law and, consequently, we reverse.

This case involves the suppression of contraband found aboard a boat. Initially, the trial court ruled that the stop of the vessel was justified because the officers had an articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Subsequently, however, the court reversed its decision and suppressed the evidence on the theory that “an investigatory stop, even when based on a reasonable suspicion of law violation, is illegal unless the vessel was initially seen in customs waters.” We respectfully disagree.

A stop of a vessel may be justified if there is evidence that the vessel has recently crossed the border or there is evidence giving rise to an articulable suspicion that the defendants were engaged in illegal activity. State v. Doyle, 409 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); State v. Zafra, 408 So.2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Morales v. State, 407 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Having found a lawful justification for the stop, the trial court erred in requiring proof that the vessel was seen in customs waters. Accordingly, the order of suppression is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DOWNEY, HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

418 So. 2d 1159, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-marzano-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack