STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JUDITH A. WEBB, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State appeals a trial court's suppression of marijuana found in Webb's vehicle, arguing the search warrant was valid. The court affirmed the suppression, holding that the inspector's affidavit failed to establish probable cause because it relied only on generalized suspicion rather than specific facts connecting Webb's vehicle to contraband.
No. The affidavit did not establish probable cause because it was based only on mere suspicion derived from the inspector's generalized experience with similar vehicles, without specific facts indicating Webb's particular vehicle contained regulated products.
[1] A search warrant affidavit must establish probable cause based on facts, not mere suspicion.
[2] An affidavit relying on the affiant's past experience with similar vehicles, without specific facts linking the current vehicle to contraband, fails to establish probable…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Probable cause . . . cannot be based on mere suspicion, but rather must be based on the facts known to exist.”
Establishes the legal standard that probable cause requires concrete facts, not generalized suspicion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWebb was stopped at an agricultural inspection station after bypassing it. An inspector smelled what he believed was marijuana when attempting to open…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mere Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals, urging that the trial court erred in suppressing marijuana found in appellee’s vehicle. The court ruled that the affidavit for the search warrant failed to allege probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. We agree and affirm.
Appellee, Judith Webb, driving a pickup with a camper shell attached, bypassed the 1-75 agricultural inspection station and was stopped by Inspector Pease, who asked permission to look into the camper. Ms. Webb could not open the door and Inspector Pease escorted her back to the station for further inspection. When she again tried to open the camper door, Inspector Pease smelled what he believed was marijuana and placed Ms. Webb under arrest for violation of Section 570.15, Florida Statutes (1977). He read the Miranda rights to her, told her he smelled marijuana, and asked for consent to search the truck; consent was denied. Inspector Pease then drove Ms. Webb and the truck to the jail, obtained and executed a warrant for the search of agricultural, horticultural or livestock products.
As a result of this search Ms. Webb was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to sell.
The question we address is whether Inspector Pease’s affidavit stated sufficient probable cause to justify the issuance of a search warrant for such products.
Inspector Pease’s affidavit for a search warrant, in pertinent part states: . Because the affiant has, on pri-or occasions, found agricultural, horticultural or livestock products in vehicles of this type, affiant pursued and stopped said vehicle. . . . The driver was identified to the affiant as Judith A. Webb, and after being advised that she had run the inspection station without stopping, Miss Webb tried to open the rear of said vehicle with the only keys she had which fits the lock. At this time, the affiant smelled, from the crack of the door, what he believes is the odor of cannabis. From affiant’s training and experience, affiant has, on numerous pri-or occasions, smelled and recognized the smell as belonging to cannabis. Because this vehicle may contain agricultural, horticultural or livestock products, affiant has not compleated (sic) his inspection at this time.
Do these facts state probable cause to search for agricultural, horticultural or livestock products? We think not. “Probable cause . . . cannot be based on mere suspicion, but rather must be based on the facts known to exist.” Churney v. State, 348 So. 2d 395, 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), United States v. Gordon, 580 F. 2d 827 (5th Cir. 1978). The allegations in Inspector Pease’s affidavit show only a mere suspicion, based on his past experience, that vehicles of “this type” often carry regulated products. Inspector Pease had no probable cause to believe that Ms. Webb’s vehicle was carrying such products and the affidavit states none. Pederson v. State, 373 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), 27 FLW 1078.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur. BOOTH, J., dissents.
BOOTH, J.,
Dissenting.
I would uphold the search. The inspector had authority to have the cargo area of the vehicle opened for inspection. Obviously, its contents could not have been inspected otherwise.1 When consent to search was denied, the inspector properly obtained a search warrant based on the odor of marijuana. Marijuana, a plant product raised for human consumption, is grown in the soil and subject to diseases, insects and other conditions which are of concern under state and federal laws. As such, it is subject to the reasonable exercise of the police power for the same reasons which are the basis for all inspections under Florida Statutes, Chapter 570. Its nature as illegal contraband does not exempt it from the inspection laws. Therefore, the odor of marijuana, emanating from the closed vehicle constituted probable cause to believe that the inspection laws were being evaded and properly supported the issuance of the search warrant.
. Sharpe v. State, 370 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mahla v. State, 383 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…dure was in accordance with law. §§ 933.04-.08, Fla.Stat. (1977). Compare Pederson v. State, 373 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (search for agricultural products by the inspector was not supported by probable cause under chapter 570); State v. Webb, 378 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (search warrant needs to state probable cause for search of agricultural products when obtained and executed by the inspector). Pease’s claim, that he smelled marijuana based upon his “training and experiences,” supported a find…
-
State v. Farrugia, 393 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…constituted agents” to search the truck for marijuana. A search was conducted pursuant to this warrant, and a quantity of marijuana was discovered. The trial court based its order suppressing the marijuana on this court’s decision in State v. Webb, 378 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). However, the instant case is clearly distinguishable from Webb. In that case, a search warrant was issued to an inspection officer to search for agricultural products, based on the inspector’s belief that he smelled the odor of…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Gordon, 580 F.2d 827 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Churney v. State, 348 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Sharpe v. State, 370 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Pederson v. State, 373 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)