MARK STEPHEN MAHLA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Mahla appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to sell, challenging the validity of the search warrant and arrest procedures used by Inspector Pease at an agricultural inspection station. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the initial stop was lawful, the search warrant was properly supported by probable cause based on the officer's sensory observations, and the technical defect in the bond did not invalidate the officer's authority.
The court held that the arrest and search procedures were lawful; the search warrant was properly supported by probable cause based on Pease's training and experience in identifying marijuana; the pretextual arrest theory did not apply because the arrest did not provide the basis for the warrant; and the technical defect in the bond did not invalidate Pease's duties because the bond substantially complied with statutory requirements.
[1] An inspector may stop a vehicle and request inspection pursuant to statute.
[2] An arrest for bypassing an agricultural inspection station is lawful.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Pease's claim, that he smelled marijuana based upon his 'training and experiences,' supported a finding of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant.”
Establishes that an officer's sensory observations based on training and experience can support probable cause without detailed description in the warrant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceInspector Pease stopped Mahla's truck at an agricultural inspection station pursuant to § 570.15, Fla. Stat. During the inspection, Pease smelled mari…
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 Appeal From Denial Of Motion To Suppress cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mahla appeals his judgment of conviction for possession of more than 100 pounds of marijuana with intent to sell following a plea of nolo contendere reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Points 1 and 5 merit brief discussion.
As to Point 1, which raises several arguments, it was proper for Inspector Pease to stop Mahla’s truck and to request inspection. § 570.15, Fla.Stat. (1977); Sharpe v. State, 370 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Further, although Pease smelled marijuana during the inspection, he retained authority to subsequently arrest Mahla, and to seize him and the truck, for bypassing the agricultural inspection station. § 570.15(2), Fla.Stat. (1977). After-wards, a search warrant for marijuana was prepared, with Pease as affiant, which-directed the “sheriff or any of his duly constituted agents” to search the detained truck for marijuana.. Deputy Denmark read the warrant to Mahla and then Pease aided the deputy sheriff in searching and unloading the truck of approximately 1270 pounds of marijuana. Mahla was then arrested on the possession charge. Contrary to Mahla’s assertion, this procedure 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 finding of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. State v. Knapp, 294 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 302 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1974). See Berry v. State, 316 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Thus, we reject the argument that Pease’s training had to be described with particularity in the warrant to support probable cause. Even when an affiant relies upon the information given by an informer, the warrant need not detail every piece of evidence supporting each factual claim. See Chadwick v. State, 358 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Finally, regardless of Pease’s motive for arresting appellant, we do not find his “pretextual arrest” theory applicable because it is clear that the arrest, otherwise valid, did not provide any basis for the warrant authorizing the search and seizure. Rather, the only practical effect of the arrest was to prevent appellant from simply driving off with over 1200 pounds of contraband. See generally State v. Holmes, 256 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), affirmed on other grounds, 273 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1972).
As to Point 5, although it was technically improper to have a blanket bond rather than an individual bond cover Pease, the bond substantially complied with the statutory prerequisites and therefore Pease lawfully performed his duties thereunder. § 570.151(1), Fla.Stat. (1977). See generally Carlton v. Constitution Indemnity Company, 117 Fla. 143, 157 So. 431, 435 (Fla. 1934); 1 Anderson on Sheriffs, Coroners, and Constables, § 19.
AFFIRMED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Irvin, 483 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…rs would have (unjustifiably) detained the appellant driver for questioning on drug charges in any event, suppressed contraband found in the car after it was stopped for going 70 miles per hour in a 50-mile-per-hour zone.2-3 See also Mahla v. State, 383 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st [*463] DCA), review denied, 389 So. 2d 1112 (Fla.1980); TJrquhart v. State, 261 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), cert. denied, 266 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1972). The law rarely, if ever, ascribes consequences .to bad thoughts alone. In this situati…
-
State v. Farrugia, 393 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…rch for marijuana. Mattson v. State, 328 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Here, the search warrant was issued to the sheriff or his agents, to search for marijuana. All of the prerequisites for a valid search warrant were present. See Mahla v. State, 383 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Accordingly, the order of the trial court is REVERSED. SHIVERS, SHAW and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Soltesz v. State, 394 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…by appellant concerning the validity of these enactments. Appellant’s second point on appeal (validity of search warrant issued pursuant to affidavit based on officers detection of the odor of marijuana) is affirmed on authority of Mahla v. State, 383 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), and State v. Farrugia, 393 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). AFFIRMED. ERVIN, LARRY G. SMITH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- State v. Holmes, 256 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- State v. Knapp, 294 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Berry v. State, 316 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Holmes v. State, 273 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1972)
- Sharpe v. State, 370 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Pederson v. State, 373 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Doyle E. Carlton v. Constitution Indem. Co., 117 Fla. 143 (Fla. 1934)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 302 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1974)
- MacIas v. State, 302 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 1974)
- Chadwick v. State, 358 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)