THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIE SANDERS WILLIAMS AND DEXTER CLAYTON WILLIAMS, 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 of Florida appealed the suppression of cocaine seized during a traffic stop where a drug-sniff dog alerted to the vehicle's trunk within three minutes of the initial stop. The court reversed, holding that the brief interval between the traffic stop and the dog's sniff constituted only a de minimis intrusion that did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
The court held that a three-minute interval between a traffic stop and a dog sniff constitutes only a de minimis intrusion on the defendants' liberty interests and does not violate Fourth Amendment rights, particularly when the time elapsed would not exceed the time necessary to complete the traffic citation paperwork.
[1] A dog sniff of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop does not constitute a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
[2] The use of a sniff dog during a traffic stop does not result in an illegal seizure of evidence obtained from the dog's alert, provided the stop itself is proper.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“use of a sniff dog constitutes neither a search nor a seizure”
Establishes the foundational principle from United States v. Place that dog sniffs are not Fourth Amendment searches or seizures
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Florida Highway Patrol trooper stopped Willie Williams for speeding on the Florida Turnpike. Within three minutes, a second trooper arrived with a d…
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 De Minimis Intrusion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state appeals the grant of a motion to suppress cocaine which was seized after a traffic stop and dog sniff. We reverse.
A Florida Highway Patrol trooper stopped a car driven by defendant Willie Williams after the trooper observed the vehicle exceeding the speed limit on the Florida Turnpike. Defendant Dexter Williams was the passenger. In anticipation of issuing a traffic citation for speeding, the trooper obtained Willie’s driver’s license and the rental agreement for the car. Within three minutes of the stop, a second trooper arrived with a sniff dog to detect evidence of illegal drugs. The dog alerted to the car’s trunk, at which point Dexter tried to flee. He was soon apprehended, and the trunk of the car was searched. Six kilos of cocaine were discovered. The entire incident transpired within some six minutes after the initial stop.
The defendants were charged with trafficking in cocaine and possession of the drug. Dexter was also charged with resisting arrest. The trial judge granted the defendants’ motion to suppress the cocaine, finding that what began as a mere traffic stop “immediately, inexplicably and without any legitimate articulable suspicion whatsoever escalated into a criminal investigation.” The state now appeals.
In United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983), the Supreme Court held that use of a sniff dog constitutes neither a search nor a seizure. Recently, in State v. Taswell, 560 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), this court held that a proper traffic stop during which a sniff dog is used does not result in an illegal seizure of any evidence obtained as a result of the dog’s alert.
The only factual difference between the instant case and Taswell is that here, defendants emphasize the interval of minutes which passed between the initial traffic stop and the dog’s sniff of the vehicle. However, the three minutes between the initial traffic stop and the point at which the dog began to work was, if at all, a de minimis intrusion into the defendants’ liberty interest. Thus their Fourth Amendment rights were certainly not infringed. Cresswell v. State, 564 So. 2d 480 (Fla.1990) (arrival and use of sniff dog during vehicle stop for a traffic infraction must take no longer than the time necessary to write the traffic citation). Cf. People v. McGaughran, 25 Cal.3d 577, 159 Cal.Rptr. 191, 195, 601 P. 2d 207, 211 (1979) (“[Because it [time needed to complete a warrant check] would not add to the delay already lawfully experienced by the offender as a result of his [traffic] violation, it would not represent any further intrusion on his rights.”); State v. Hewey, 144 Vt. 10, 471 A. 2d 236 (1983) (upholding Fourth Amendment challenge to a fourteen-minute stop, nine minutes of which were spent in running a record check on defendant’s driver’s license and writing up the citation).
Based on this analysis, State v. Anderson, 479 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), is not dispositive. There, the defendant had already been issued a traffic citation and then waited for one-half hour more before a sniff dog arrived. Here, the dog began its work in no more time than it would have taken to complete the paper work for the traffic citation alone.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court order suppressing the cocaine seized.
Because of our resolution of this issue, it is unnecessary to reach the issue of the passenger’s standing status.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saturnino-Boudet v. State, 682 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…d 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 So. 2d 495, 498 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 534 So. 2d 398 (Fla.1988); Cardwell v. State, 482 So…
-
McNEIL v. State, 656 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…be issued a citation. Further, the driver, by his conduct, subjected his vehicle to a drug sniff so long as it was conducted within the time required for the issuance of the citation. Cresswell v. State, 564 So. 2d 480 (Fla.1990); State v. Williams, 565 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 295 (Fla.1991), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 955, 111 S.Ct. 2265, 114 L.Ed.2d 717 (1991). But the passenger did nothing to warrant her individual detention as there was no reason to write her a citation nor was…
-
Sanon v. Joseph, 588 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…essary for us to decide this close question. .The use of a sniff dog during the normal course of a traffic stop does not constitute a search or seizure. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983); State v. Williams, 565 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).…
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. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1983)
- Cresswell v. State, 564 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1990)
- Racino v. State, 479 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- State v. Hansel Taswell, 560 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)