STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCIS FARRUGIA AND GREGORY S. SULLIVAN, APPELLEES
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 order suppressing marijuana discovered during a search of appellees' vehicle. The court reverses, holding that the odor of marijuana provided sufficient probable cause for issuance of a search warrant directed at searching for marijuana, distinguishing the case from prior precedent where a warrant was improperly issued to search for agricultural products based on the same odor.
The odor of marijuana is sufficient probable cause to search for marijuana. The search warrant issued to the sheriff or his agents to search for marijuana was valid and satisfied all prerequisites. The trial court's order suppressing the marijuana is reversed.
[1] The odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle, based on an inspector's training and experience, constitutes probable cause to search for marijuana.
[2] A search warrant issued to a sheriff or their agents to search for marijuana is valid when supported by an affidavit detailing facts establishing probable cause.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the odor of marijuana is sufficient probable cause to search for marijuana”
Establishes the legal standard that distinguishes searching for marijuana from searching for agricultural products based on marijuana odor
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees were stopped by an inspection officer after bypassing an agricultural inspection station in a pick-up truck with a camper shell. They refuse…
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 Odor Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals the trial court’s order suppressing marijuana found in appellees’ vehicle. We reverse.
Appellees were stopped by an inspection officer, after they were observed bypassing an agricultural inspection station, driving a pick-up truck with an attached camper shell. Appellees refused to allow the inspector to check the vehicle for regulated agricultural, horticultural, or livestock products. They were escorted back to the inspection station, and the inspector placed the driver, Farrugia, under arrest for bypassing the station. A deputy sheriff was then summoned.
While appellees were being detained at the inspection station, the inspector smelled an odor coming from the corner of the camper-top door which, from his training and experience, he identified as the odor of marijuana. He prepared an affidavit for a search warrant, reciting the aforementioned facts. On the basis of this affidavit, a search warrant was issued to “the sheriff ... or any of his duly 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 marijuana coming from the truck. This court held that the odor of marijuana did not constitute probable cause to search for agricultural, horticultural or livestock products.
This court has previously held, however, that the odor of marijuana is sufficient probable cause to search 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Soltesz v. State, 394 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…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.…
Authorities Cited
- Mattson v. State, 328 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Mahla v. State, 383 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- State v. Webb, 378 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)