Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2005 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Almeida-Sanchez v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1981Although it is settled law that the customs area at an airport is the border for arriving international passengers, Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 273 , 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2539 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596, 602-3 (1973); United States v. Klein, 592 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Himmelwright, 551 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902 , 98 S.Ct. 298 , 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (1977), these cases do not identify the above statutes as authorizing the search. 1981Although it is settled law that the customs area at an airport is the border for arriving international passengers, Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 273 , 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2539 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596, 602-3 (1973); United States v. Klein, 592 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Himmelwright, 551 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902 , 98 S.Ct. 298 , 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (1977), these cases do not identify the above statutes as authorizing the search. | 1 | 2 |
Illinois v. Andreasgreen1 sentence2005See Andreas, 463 U.S. at 769, 103 S.Ct. 3319 ; Hill, 430 F.2d 129 (5th . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Garciagreen1 sentence2003For the exception to apply, "[t]here must at least be some articulable facts from which it is reasonable to infer that there was a recent border crossing." United States v. Garcia, 598 F.Supp. 533, 535-536 (S.D.Fla.1984); see also Chi v. State, 421 So.2d 670, 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). | 1 | 1 |
Weires v. Russogreen1 sentence2003For the exception to apply, "[t]here must at least be some articulable facts from which it is reasonable to infer that there was a recent border crossing." United States v. Garcia, 598 F.Supp. 533, 535-536 (S.D.Fla.1984); see also Chi v. State, 421 So.2d 670, 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Edgar Hernandez-Salazargreen1 sentence1997The "long-standing right of the sovereign to protect itself" that underlies the traditional rationale for the border search exception is implicated to a substantial degree where the international borders of the United *810 States are penetrated by large sums of undeclared currency departing this country. (quoting from United States v. Hernandez-Salazar, 813 F.2d 1126, 1138 (11th Cir.1987)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Gjon Berishagreen1 sentence1997United States v. Berisha, 925 F.2d 791, 794 (5th Cir.1991). [4] Before 1986 subsection (b) of 5317 initially read: A customs officer may stop and search, without a search warrant, a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other conveyance, envelope or other container, or person entering or departing from the United States with respect to which or whom the officer has reasonable cause to believe there is a monetary instrument being transported in violation of section 5316 of this title. [5] We have found, however, at least one Florida case that involved a border search at an international airport with a | 1 | 1 |
Mata v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Mata v. State, 380 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition for review denied, 389 So.2d 1112 (Fla.1980) (although search resulting in seizure of cocaine occurred at Miami International Airport, passengers had neither entered nor intended to leave the country; all connecting flights and destinations were domestic). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Robert Scott Hill and Thomas Leroy Leonard
green
1 sentence2005See Andreas, 463 U.S. at 769, 103 S.Ct. 3319 ; Hill, 430 F.2d 129 (5th . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1997NOTES [1] All parties to this case agree, as do we, that the subsequent search of the mini-storage unit, which was the subject of the lease and the location of the cannabis, is valid if the search at the airport did not exceed the scope of a routine border search. [2] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [3] To extend the border search exception to exiting persons may depend on an analysis of the particular statute under which the search is being conducted and whether it contains a "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" requirement. 1997NOTES [1] All parties to this case agree, as do we, that the subsequent search of the mini-storage unit, which was the subject of the lease and the location of the cannabis, is valid if the search at the airport did not exceed the scope of a routine border search. [2] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [3] To extend the border search exception to exiting persons may depend on an analysis of the particular statute under which the search is being conducted and whether it contains a "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" requirement. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
United States v. Vincent Ezeiruaku
green
1 sentence1997Our case involves, as did Berisha, Oriakhi, and United States v. Ezeiruaku, 936 F.2d 136 (3d Cir.1991), a violation of the reporting requirement of currency and monetary instruments. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Doyle
neutral
1 sentence1982We reverse his convictions upon a holding that (1) there was no evidence giving rise to any reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in illegal activity which justified a stop of the vessel, see State v. Zaira, 408 So.2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); (2) since the vessel was stopped by Customs Officers inside the coastline of the United States and there was no evidence that the vessel had crossed the border into the United States, no boarding was authorized under Title 19 United States Code, Section 1581 (a) (1980), see State v. Doyle, 409 So.2d 1168 , 1169 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and th | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Zafra
green
1 sentence1982We reverse his convictions upon a holding that (1) there was no evidence giving rise to any reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in illegal activity which justified a stop of the vessel, see State v. Zaira, 408 So.2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); (2) since the vessel was stopped by Customs Officers inside the coastline of the United States and there was no evidence that the vessel had crossed the border into the United States, no boarding was authorized under Title 19 United States Code, Section 1581 (a) (1980), see State v. Doyle, 409 So.2d 1168 , 1169 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and th | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Morales v. State
green
1 sentence1982We reverse his convictions upon a holding that (1) there was no evidence giving rise to any reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in illegal activity which justified a stop of the vessel, see State v. Zaira, 408 So.2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); (2) since the vessel was stopped by Customs Officers inside the coastline of the United States and there was no evidence that the vessel had crossed the border into the United States, no boarding was authorized under Title 19 United States Code, Section 1581 (a) (1980), see State v. Doyle, 409 So.2d 1168 , 1169 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and th | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Casal
green
1 sentence1982We reverse his convictions upon a holding that (1) there was no evidence giving rise to any reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in illegal activity which justified a stop of the vessel, see State v. Zaira, 408 So.2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); (2) since the vessel was stopped by Customs Officers inside the coastline of the United States and there was no evidence that the vessel had crossed the border into the United States, no boarding was authorized under Title 19 United States Code, Section 1581 (a) (1980), see State v. Doyle, 409 So.2d 1168 , 1169 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and th | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Little v. Willimon
green
1 sentence1982We reverse his convictions upon a holding that (1) there was no evidence giving rise to any reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in illegal activity which justified a stop of the vessel, see State v. Zaira, 408 So.2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); (2) since the vessel was stopped by Customs Officers inside the coastline of the United States and there was no evidence that the vessel had crossed the border into the United States, no boarding was authorized under Title 19 United States Code, Section 1581 (a) (1980), see State v. Doyle, 409 So.2d 1168 , 1169 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and th | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Carroll v. United States
green
2 sentences1981United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616-19 , 97 S.Ct. 1972, 1978-80 , 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153-54 , 45 S.Ct. 280, 285-86 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), adopted in toto by § 933.19, Fla. Stat. (1979); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 272-75 , 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2539-40 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973); I.M. v. State, 400 So.2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and cases collected; State v. Smith, 399 So.2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and cases collected; 19 U.S.C. §§ 1581 (a), 1582 (1980). 1981United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616-19 , 97 S.Ct. 1972, 1978-80 , 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153-54 , 45 S.Ct. 280, 285-86 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), adopted in toto by § 933.19, Fla. Stat. (1979); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 272-75 , 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2539-40 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973); I.M. v. State, 400 So.2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and cases collected; State v. Smith, 399 So.2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and cases collected; 19 U.S.C. §§ 1581 (a), 1582 (1980). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence1981United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616-19 , 97 S.Ct. 1972, 1978-80 , 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153-54 , 45 S.Ct. 280, 285-86 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), adopted in toto by § 933.19, Fla. Stat. (1979); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 272-75 , 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2539-40 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973); I.M. v. State, 400 So.2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and cases collected; State v. Smith, 399 So.2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and cases collected; 19 U.S.C. §§ 1581 (a), 1582 (1980). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
United States v. Ramsey
green
2 sentences1981United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616-19 , 97 S.Ct. 1972, 1978-80 , 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153-54 , 45 S.Ct. 280, 285-86 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), adopted in toto by § 933.19, Fla. Stat. (1979); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 272-75 , 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2539-40 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973); I.M. v. State, 400 So.2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and cases collected; State v. Smith, 399 So.2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and cases collected; 19 U.S.C. §§ 1581 (a), 1582 (1980). 1981United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616-19 , 97 S.Ct. 1972, 1978-80 , 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153-54 , 45 S.Ct. 280, 285-86 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), adopted in toto by § 933.19, Fla. Stat. (1979); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 272-75 , 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2539-40 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973); I.M. v. State, 400 So.2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and cases collected; State v. Smith, 399 So.2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and cases collected; 19 U.S.C. §§ 1581 (a), 1582 (1980). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
United States v. Mary Ann Himmelwright
green
1 sentence1981Although it is settled law that the customs area at an airport is the border for arriving international passengers, Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 273 , 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2539 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596, 602-3 (1973); United States v. Klein, 592 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Himmelwright, 551 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902 , 98 S.Ct. 298 , 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (1977), these cases do not identify the above statutes as authorizing the search. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
United States v. Tim Joseph Klein
green
1 sentence1981Although it is settled law that the customs area at an airport is the border for arriving international passengers, Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 273 , 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2539 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596, 602-3 (1973); United States v. Klein, 592 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Himmelwright, 551 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902 , 98 S.Ct. 298 , 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (1977), these cases do not identify the above statutes as authorizing the search. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Partin v. United States
green
1 sentence1981Although it is settled law that the customs area at an airport is the border for arriving international passengers, Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 273 , 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2539 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596, 602-3 (1973); United States v. Klein, 592 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Himmelwright, 551 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902 , 98 S.Ct. 298 , 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (1977), these cases do not identify the above statutes as authorizing the search. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Mincey v. Arizona
green
1 sentence1981Although it is settled law that the customs area at an airport is the border for arriving international passengers, Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 273 , 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2539 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596, 602-3 (1973); United States v. Klein, 592 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Himmelwright, 551 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902 , 98 S.Ct. 298 , 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (1977), these cases do not identify the above statutes as authorizing the search. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Gamble v. Estelle
green
1 sentence1981Although it is settled law that the customs area at an airport is the border for arriving international passengers, Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 273 , 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2539 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596, 602-3 (1973); United States v. Klein, 592 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Himmelwright, 551 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902 , 98 S.Ct. 298 , 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (1977), these cases do not identify the above statutes as authorizing the search. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
I. M. v. State
neutral
1 sentence1981United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616-19 , 97 S.Ct. 1972, 1978-80 , 52 L.Ed.2d 617 (1977); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153-54 , 45 S.Ct. 280, 285-86 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), adopted in toto by § 933.19, Fla. Stat. (1979); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 272-75 , 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2539-40 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973); I.M. v. State, 400 So.2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and cases collected; State v. Smith, 399 So.2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and cases collected; 19 U.S.C. §§ 1581 (a), 1582 (1980). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.