 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
Florida v. Royer (1983)
Author: Brown
Facts: - Police believed Royer fit the drug courier profile. Upon request, but without oral consent, Royer produced his airline ticket (which was under an assumed name) and driver's license (under his real name) to detectives. The detectives informed Royer that they were narcotics investigators and that they suspected him of transporting narcotics. (At this point, if the police are still suspicious, even without probable cause, after identifying himself and asking questions, he can frisk the detainee for weapons.) However, without returning either Royer's ticket or his license, they asked him to accompany them to a small police room adjacent to the concourse. (Essentially the Police had placed Royer under arrest, because Royers involuntary detention exceeded the limited restraint permitted by Terry v. Ohio, thus the search was unlawful.) (In an investigative stop, the police may not carry out a full search of the person or his effects.) (The search must be limited in s! cope to the place to be searched. In this case it was a pat-down of royer, or the least intrusive.) One of the detectives retrieved Royer's luggage and brought it to the room. Royer did not respond to the detectives' request for consent to search his luggage. However, Royer (under duress i.e., and arrest for nothing and without probable) produced a key and unlocked one suitcase, in which marijuana was found. Royer claimed he did not know the combination to the other suitcase, but did not object to it being opened. The officers pried it open and found more marijuana. .
Procedural History: - Royer was convicted of felony possession of marijuana. Royer moved to suppress the evidence. The Trial court denied. Royer appealed. The Appeals court reversed his conviction holding that Royer had been involuntarily confined without probable cause, and the detention exceeded the limited restraint permitted by Terry v. Ohio, and the consent was therefore invalid. The State of Florida appealed.
Defendant’s Argument: - Royer contended that his consent to search the luggage was tainted by the illegal detention, and therefore officers' actions exceeded permissible bounds of investigative stop.
Plaintiff’s Argument: - The State of Florida contended that Royer’s search was consensual because he was not being illegally detained.
Issue: - Whether consent to a search invalid if tainted by unlawful confinement without probable cause? Answer = Yes.
Rule: - Consent to a search is invalid without probable cause if tainted by unlawful confinement.
Concise Rule: - Consent to search without probable cause must be voluntary. Consent to a search is invalid if tainted by unlawful confinement without probable cause
Holding: - Reversed in favor of Royer.
Reasoning: - The 4th Amendment is not violated by officers approaching an individual in a public place, and identifying themselves. An investigative stop must be temporary and last no longer than necessary to effectuate the purpose. Removal of the detainee without his consent, involuntarily, from a public area to a police room in the airport converted the Terry stop to an arrest, where probable cause is necessary. Probable cause did not exist when Royer consented to the search of the luggage. Statements made during illegal detention are inadmissible even if voluntary.