THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
HANSEL TASWELL, 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 court held that a drug dog's alert on a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop provides probable cause for a warrantless search.
A police officer lawfully stopped a vehicle for speeding and then used a drug-sniffing dog. The dog alerted to the trunk, leading to the discovery of …
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 Illegal Search And Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
The state appeals an order suppressing evidence found to have been obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure. We reverse.
After observing defendant’s vehicle exceeding the speed limit on the Florida Turnpike, a Florida Highway patrolman pulled over the vehicle with the intention of issuing defendant a citation for speeding. After examining the defendant’s driver’s license, the officer asked defendant and his passenger to exit the car. The officer then released a dog from the cruiser. The dog was directed to sniff around the vehicle for evidence of drugs. The dog alerted to an odor in the car’s trunk. Upon opening the trunk, two kilograms of cocaine were found. The defendant was placed under arrest. After a hearing, defendant’s motion to suppress the cocaine was granted. The state now appeals.
The defendant was properly stopped for a traffic violation. See Spann v. State, 512 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Once the defendant was legally stopped, the use of a sniff dog was not an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983). A sniff dog’s “alert” can constitute probable cause to conduct a search. Id. Once probable cause existed to search the vehicle, no warrant was needed to authorize the search. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982). “Just as no police officer need close his eyes to contraband in plain view, no police officer armed with a sniff dog need ignore the olfactory essence of illegality.” Cardwell v. State, 482 So. 2d 512, 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); see Cresswell v. State, 524 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
Accordingly, it was error to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the search.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saturnino-Boudet v. State, 682 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…r need close his eyes to contraband in plain view, no police officer armed with a sniff dog need ignore the olfactory essence of illegality. State v. Orozco, 607 So. 2d 464, 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Taswell, 560 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)), rev. denied, 614 So. 2d 503 (Fla.1993); State v. Williams, 565 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 295 (Fla.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 955, 111 S.Ct. 2265,114 L.Ed.2d 717 (1991); see also Denton v. State, 524 S…
-
State v. Bass, 609 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…the cannabis and currency. Once the defendant was legally stopped, the use of a sniff dog was not an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983); State v. Taswell, 560 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The trial judge suppressed the evidence because in this case there was no traffic violation. We find that immaterial. The trial judge found specifically “Certainly, Officer Fontana appropriately exercised his jurisdiction by stop…
-
Daniels v. Cochran, 654 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…1st DCA 1986); Denton v. State, 524 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); State v. Williams, 565 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), review denied, 576 So. 2d 295 (Fla.1991), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 955, 111 S.Ct. 2265, 114 L.Ed.2d 717 (1991); State v. Taswell, 560 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). A search of a motor vehicle or its contents, based on probable cause but without a warrant, falls within the “automobile exception” established in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). In Carr…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1983)
- Cardwell v. State, 482 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Spann v. State, 512 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Cresswell v. State, 524 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)