Higerd v. State
54 So. 3d 513
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Appellant pled nolo contendé to 194 counts of possession of child pornography and reserved appeal on suppression rulings.
- TSA opened and swabbed the checked baggage; an accordion folder inside the bag was opened.
- TSA officer thumbed through papers in the folder and discovered about 10 photographs prompting a supervisor's involvement.
- Local police obtained warrants to search Appellant’s computer and related media found in the bag; additional warrants followed for more drives.
- Appellant moved to suppress the baggage search as an unlawful warrantless, invasive inspection outside his presence; trial court denied.
- Court affirmed the denial, treating airport screening as a reasonable administrative search under Fourth Amendment standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the administrative search of checked luggage was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. | Appellant argues the search was overly intrusive given available technology. | State argues airport screening is a constitutionally reasonable administrative search under TSA protocol. | Not an abuse; search deemed reasonable. |
| Whether opening the accordion folder and leafing through papers exceeded the search scope. | Leafing through documents extended beyond search for weapons/explosives. | Protocol allowed flipping through papers as part of the search for contraband. | Search stayed within scope; did not exceed authority. |
| Whether the potential suppression should be avoided under the good faith exception. | Evidence should be excluded because the search violated Fourth Amendment. | Good faith exception applies; officers acted under TSA protocol. | Good faith exception applies; exclusion not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007) (airport screening searches are reasonable administrative searches under a regulatory scheme)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when police conduct was not negligent)
- United States v. McCarty, 672 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (D. Hawaii 2009) (premised on administrative search scope; laterled to suppression in different fact pattern)
- United States v. Fofana, 620 F. Supp. 2d 857 (S.D. Ohio 2009) (distinguished as not confined to search purpose; evidence of overbreadth leading to suppression)
- Jones v. State, 648 So.2d 669 (Fla. 1994) (established warrantless, reasonable searches in certain contexts; burden on government)
- Shapiro v. State, 390 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1980) (air passenger searches may occur within airport security area for safety purposes)