Legal Document

469 U.S. 1 105 S.Ct. 308 83 L.Ed.2d 165 FLORIDA,v.Damasco Vincente RODRIGUEZ. No. 83-1367. Nov. 13, 1984. Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for petitioner. Eric Cohen, Coconut Grove, respondent. PER CURIAM. Respondent Damasco Rodriguez was charged in a Florida state trial court with possession of cocaine intent to distribute. The State claimed that on September 12, 1978, he had attempted transport three pounds contained his luggage through the Miami International Airport. Cocaine seized from respondent following an examination at airport suppressed by grounds respondent's rights under Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments United States Constitution been violated search. District Court Appeal, affirmed judgment per curiam opinion, citing its earlier decision v. Battleman, 374 So.2d 636 (1979). Rodriguez, 389 4 (1980). This originally denied certiorari, 451 1022, 101 3015, 69 395 (1981), but two years later granted rehearing remanded case Appeal reconsideration light our opinions Royer, 460 491, 103 1319, 75 229 (1983). 461 940, 2115, 77 1298 again suppression evidence one-word order, 443 995 (1983), has petitioned certiorari. Because court's against him prior trial, never tried drug offense which charged, former attorneys have advised this is currently fugitive justice. 2 only witness testify hearing Officer Charles McGee, who police officer Dade County Public Safety Department. McGee testified received about 40 hours narcotics training academy and, after being assigned Narcotics Squad, 5-week course Organized Crime Bureau, included one-and-one-half weeks narcotic surveillance identification. He further auspices Drug Enforcement Administration, time testimony 18 months' experience unit. also "source city" narcotics. 3 first noticed National Airlines ticket counter Airport shortly noon 1978. McGee's attention drawn fact individuals identified as Blanco Ramirez behaved unusual manner while leaving Detective Facchiano, were both plain clothes, followed respondent, Ramirez, concourse flights departed. stood side escalator, directly behind them. detectives observed converse one another, although neither spoke At top escalator stairs, looked back saw detectives; then lower voice Ramirez. turned around detectives, head very quickly Blanco. As cohorts left single file, turned, said, "Let's get out here." repeated much voice, "Get caught sight detectives. move away, words "His legs pumping up down fast not covering ground, if person running place." App. Pet. Cert. 49. Finding efforts flight unsuccessful, confronted uttered vulgar exclamation. 5 showed badge asked they might talk. agreed, suggested approximately 15 feet where standing now himself officer. 6 They remained public area airport. some identification airline ticket. said did not, handed cash names it—Martinez, Perez, Rodriguez. In ensuing discussion, what name replied "Rodriguez"; he, too, answered "Rodriguez." correctly. point, officers informed suspects officers, consent search luggage. key, told should let look luggage, prompted hand key. found bags suit bag, arrested men. until cocaine, men free leave. advise could refuse 7 order granting motion suppress reads follows: 8 "1. There no reason stop defendant, Defendant nothing would arouse articulable suspicion eyes Facchiano. 9 "2. Due lack telling right leave, search, there insufficient showing herein completely untainted due things previously mentioned. 10 "3. statement made Defendant's companion overcome taint initial illegal Defendant." 89-90. 11 We think reflects misapprehension controlling principles law governing stops enunciated Mendenhall, 446 544, 100 1870, 64 497 (1980), ruling May 1979, obviously cannot be faulted familiarity these opinions, Appeal's final affirmance remand occurred November 15, 1983, issued. legal Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 93 2041, 36 854 (1973). 12 Certain constraints personal liberty constitute "seizures" purposes Amendment may nonetheless justified even though "probable cause" "there committed or commit crime." supra, U.S., 498, S.Ct., 1324 (opinion WHITE, J.). Such temporary detention questioning reviewed lesser standard Terry Ohio, 392 1, 88 1868, 20 889 (1968), permissible because "public interest involved transactions drugs any other serious 498-499, 1324-1325. 13 contact between simply step aside talk them, clearly sort consensual encounter implicates interest. 554, 1877 Stewart, J.); 497, Assuming, without deciding, agreed police, moved over detective standing, ultimately permission baggage, "seizure" Amendment, we hold such seizure "articulable suspicion." 14 Before confederates, sighted plainclothes spoken furtively another. One twice overheard urging others "get Respondent's strange movements attempt evade aroused justifiable suspicion, so contradictory statements concerning identities special apprehension; like members Squad Department "carrying highly specialized enforcement operation designed combat societal threat posed distribution." 562, 1881 (POWELL, J., concurring part judgment). "was approached major international where, extensive antihijacking equipment, reasonable privacy expectations are significantly magnitude . ." 515, 1333 (BLACKMUN, dissenting). hold, therefore, incorrect conclusion basis detaining "taint" resulting stop. held need prove defendant consenting knew withhold consent, knowledge taken into account determining whether "voluntary." unable determine opinion respect voluntariness same it correctly applied embodied Amendment. 16 petition writ certiorari therefore granted, Appeals reversed, cause proceedings inconsistent opinion. 17 It ordered. Justice MARSHALL dissents. 19 STEVENS, whom BRENNAN joins, dissenting. With increasing frequency seems prone disregard important differences cases come us tribunals those arise federal system. See Secretary Maryland Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 947, 970, 104 2839, 2854, 81 786 (1984) (STEVENS, concurring). last resort system, supervisory authority must occasionally perform pure error-correcting function litigation. do comparable responsibility correct mistakes bound occur thousands throughout land. action takes today illustrates how far depart principal mission when becomes transfixed specter courier escaping punishment due. 21 * Some five ago judge conducted county length. transcript contains somewhat improbable either place frantically circles presence agent,1 agent identifying sure mistaken member Hare Krishna.2 22 After all officer's testimony, stated: 23 "Counsel, I am going rule matter wrong, point time. whole hinges given subsequent Let me hear your argument that." Tr. 104. 24 argument, ruled voluntarily consented making ruling, relied, part, 25 Today holds (1) suspicion" person; (2) articulate legally sufficient bag. Accordingly, remands proceedings. 26 To understand nature disposition, necessary comment events transpired litigation during past years. II 27 On 23, 1980, full Third filed entirety 28 "Per Curiam. 29 "Affirmed (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)." 4. 30 Attorney General ask Supreme review decision. appellate system carefully structured enable State's highest concentrateon matters greater importance than possibility judge's error corrected intermediate appeal. explained 1958 opinion: 31 "We heretofore pointed constitutional plan powers decisions district courts appeal limited strictly prescribed revision modernization judicial level great volume reaching consequent delay administration new article embodies terms idea functions body State, exercising power certain specified areas essential settlement issues preservation uniformity principle practice, most instances absolute." Ansin Thurston, 808, 810, quoted approval Jenkins 385 1356, 1357 (Fla.1980). 32 Recognizing does provide forum judgments instead Court. present question general significance, 26, 1981, wisely 395. Presumably convinced committed, Members dissented disposition stated "would grant reverse judgment." Ibid.3 timely rehearing. III 33 Rule 51.2 Court's Rules requires set forth "must intervening circumstances substantial effect presented." ground advanced succession erroneous having devastating prosecutions. "intervening circumstance," noted my satisfied Rule. event, docket next 34 51.3 provides will opportunity submit response. long respond petition, learned justice longer represented counsel. entered rehearing, vacating remanding Royer. 1298. IV 35 reads, entirety, Affirmed." 37 thereafter another Court,4 rewards effort. continue believe, however, issue warranting 38 filed, every cited already decided. Presumably, petitioner called Appeal. Since purport announce law, fair presume familiar discussed today. Thus, performs refused perform, reverses applying settled facts case. V 39 flawed least respects. undertake de novo factual findings issue. My colleagues testify; study care appropriate credibility determinations; indeed, collectively minimal factfinding profession. Moreover, implicitly assumes duty explain reasons affirming judgment. If court, upon remand, enters judgment, suppose interpret determination existing record A "a fact-bound little importance." Massachusetts Sheppard, 468 981, 988, n. 5, 3424, 3428, 82 737 (1984). presume, should, judges why make assumption presently exists. VI 41 irony apprehended, probably punished upheld. Perhaps tireless bring man result convictions counts. believe abandon role direct courts. Instead, ought take lesson focus overriding single-minded achievement results individual virtue characterize work 42 respectfully dissent. "THE WITNESS: moving direction left. His place. You say slightly There's wall partition there. ran just enclosed off. COURT: Did run walk? Neither. down. minute ago. go walk run? Well, Your Honor, don't know word be, ain't nowhere except "Do you I'm saying? "[THE PROSECUTOR:] can stand show us. Like place? Sort (indicating). "To demonstrate, stamping suitcase shoulder bag guy strained tone here. me. that. didn't do. crazy. moving, but— All right. Have seat. WITNESS:] came passed still fashion went watching circles. Maybe that's way walks." 52-54. myself couple purposes: observations made, number one; two, someone us, properly identify ourselves Krishnas trying rip them off something manner. respectability conversation him. Don't usually their heads shaved?" Id., 64-65. suggestion summary reversal Justices underscores ever considered worthy plenary rendered reasons, "expressly" decide conflict jurisdictional provision discretionary Fla. Const., Art. V, § 3(b)(3).

Classification Label: 0