STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LARRY EARL RUSSELL, 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 of Florida appealed a trial court's order suppressing marijuana found in a vehicle after a traffic stop. The court reversed, holding that the traffic stop was valid based on an observed tag light violation, and the officer's use of a drug-detection dog during the lawful detention provided probable cause to search the vehicle.
The court held that the traffic stop was valid because a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle for the observed tag light violation regardless of any additional purpose. The dog's positive alert provided probable cause to search the vehicle, and the officers had a lawful right to be present when the alert occurred.
[1] A traffic stop is not pretextual if a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle based on the observed violation, even if narcotics interdiction was also a purpose…
[2] A non-operational tag light is a valid basis for a traffic stop.
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“under the facts and circumstances a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle absent an additional invalid purpose”
The legal test for determining whether a traffic stop is valid and not pretextual, establishing that the stop here was lawful based on the observed tag light violation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers Gederian and McDonald, conducting narcotic interdiction on Interstate 75 with K-9 Thunder, observed Russell's blue van had a nonoperational t…
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 Pretextual Traffic Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
The State of Florida appeals the trial court’s order which granted a motion to suppress marijuana seized from a vehicle after a traffic stop. We reverse.
Officers Gederian and McDonald of the Fort Myers Police Department were on uniformed patrol in a marked patrol car on Interstate 75 (1-75). Accompanying the officers in their patrol car was Thunder, a K-9 narcotic detector dog certified through the United States Police Canine Association in the detection of marijuana, hash, cocaine, and heroin. The officers and Thunder were on 1-75 for the purpose of narcot ics interdiction through the use of probable cause traffic stops.
As the officers were proceeding south on 1-75, a blue van passed them, and both officers noticed that the van’s tag light was nonoperational. The officers initiated a traffic stop for this offense. The officers approached the van and asked Larry Earl Russell, who was driving, to step outside the vehicle. The officers advised Russell of the reason for the stop, and then McDonald began writing the ticket for the tag light violation. As McDonald was writing the ticket, Gederian took Thunder out of the patrol car and conducted an exterior sweep of Russell’s van. On the first pass of the van, Thunder put his nose into the crack of the driver’s side door, sniffed deeply, and continued around the van. After the first sweep of the van was concluded, Gederian took Thunder for a second sweep because Thunder had shown an interest in the van on the first pass. On the second pass of the driver’s side door, Thunder stopped, sniffed the door, and began pawing at the door, which was a positive indication for the presence of some type of drug. Using Thunder’s alert as probable cause, Gederian opened the door and searched the interior of the van for drugs. Gederian opened the center console between the front seats and observed a clear plastic baggie which contained green plant material that Gederian recognized as marijuana. The officers arrested Russell for possession of a controlled substance.
The trial judge, finding that the traffic stop was a pretext, granted Russell’s motion to suppress evidence. We disagree.
The test for determining whether a stop was valid and not a pretextual stop is whether “under the facts and circumstances a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle absent an additional invalid purpose.” Kehoe v. State, 521 So. 2d 1094, 1097 (Fla.1988). In this case, although the officers were primarily concerned with narcotics interdiction, there was evidence of a valid basis for the stop. The officers noticed the traffic violation and had not been looking for a reason to stop this particular person or vehicle. Further, the officers did cite Russell for the tag light violation. See Andrews v. State, 540 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (stop for a nonoperational tag light was a valid stop); see also State v. Renda, 553 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (temporary detention for failing to stop at a stop sign was not an illegal detention); Moreland v. State, 552 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (stop for speeding and weaving was not an invalid stop). Because the stop and temporary detention were legal, the officers had a right to be where they were when probable cause arose through the dog’s indication that Russell possessed drugs.* Accordingly, the trial court erred when it granted the motion to suppress evidence.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur. *
A trained narcotics detector dog’s positive indication for drugs provides probable cause for arrest or to search. Denton v. State, 524 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 534 So. 2d 398 (Fla.1988).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Matheson v. State, 870 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…of pertinent literature convinces us that this is not enough. Law enforcement use of narcotics detection dogs has become commonplace. And, generally, a trained dog’s alert on a vehicle may constitute probable cause to search. See State v. Russell, 557 So. 2d 666, 667 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Denton v. State, 524 So. 2d 495, 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The reason, of course, is the dog’s keen sense of smell. A dog’s nose is uniquely equipped to detect the faintest of odors. Dogs possess potentially billions of…
-
State v. Bryant Michael Eubanks, 609 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…ould have determined whether the officer had cause to stop appellee’s car based on a reasonable belief that he observed a traffic violation. E.g., Rollins v. State, 578 So. 2d 850, 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Appellant state relies on State v. Russell, 557 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), and State v. Taswell, 560 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), for the proposition that once the officers have a legal reason for a traffic stop, they are entitled to search the vehicle. Because the trial court did not make a specific…
-
State v. Brooks, 662 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…r, it is lawful to have the dog sniff the exterior of the stopped vehicle at any time while the process of writing the traffic citation, and receiving radio responses is going on. State v. Taswell, 560 So. 2d 257 (Fla 3d DCA 1990); State v. Russell, 557 So. 2d 666 (Fla 2d DCA 1990). Similarly no argument for unlawful detention can be made, in the ease of an officer with a dog aboard who happens by shortly after the traffic stop, while the traffic ticket is being written. See State v. Bass, 609 So. 2d 151 (Fla…
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
- Kehoe v. State, 521 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1988)
- Moreland v. State, 552 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Denton v. State, 524 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Andrews v. State, 540 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Denton v. State, 553 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- State v. Renda, 553 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)