Court Opinion

ID: 9585784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:03:53.463604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:14.840606
License: Public Domain

Coleman, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment affirming the conviction. However, in my view the reason the investigative stop did not violate the fourth amendment protection against warrantless searches and seizures was solely because the officer possessed specific and articulable facts, based partly on his personal knowledge of the monetary penalty provisions of the Florida local car rental agreements, which, together with reasonable inferences, warranted the suspicion that the automobile might be stolen. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Although whether an investigative stop is reasonable must be determined from viewing the “totality of circumstances,” see Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), nevertheless, many of the factors emphasized by the majority, including the defendant’s personal features and drug courier profile characteristics, were not relevant to whether there was a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. There were no facts which, in my opinion, gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was transporting drugs. The officer was, however, justified in briefly stopping the car to investigate whether it was illegally removed from Florida because the facts gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of automobile theft.