STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROY EDWARD CHAMBLISS, 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 appeals the suppression of cocaine evidence obtained after a traffic stop. The trial court suppressed evidence because it believed the defendant was unlawfully detained based on the officer's subjective intention to search for officer safety, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the odor of marijuana provided probable cause for the detention and search regardless of the officer's subjective motivations.
The appellate court held that the detention was lawful and the evidence should not have been suppressed. The court concluded that the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle provided probable cause to search the defendant, and the constitutional reasonableness of the traffic stop does not depend on the subjective motivations of individual officers.
[1] The odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle provides probable cause to search all occupants of the vehicle.
[2] The constitutional reasonableness of a traffic stop is not dependent on the subjective motivations of individual officers.
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“constitutional reasonableness of traffic stop not dependent on subjective motivations of individual officers”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that officer subjective intent is irrelevant to Fourth Amendment analysis of traffic stops
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice stopped a vehicle because the license tag did not match the vehicle. When the officer approached, he detected a strong smell of marijuana comin…
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.
GRIFFIN, J.
The state appeals an order suppressing evidence obtained during a traffic stop. The appellee was a passenger in a vehicle stopped because the tag did not match the ear. When the officer approached the vehicle, he detected the “strong smell” of marijuana. He had all three occupants exit the vehiclé. After back-up arrived, the appellee bolted. Before being apprehended, he took a pill bottle from his pocket and threw it (onto the roof of the police cruiser). The bottle contained cocaine, which is the subject of the suppression order.
The trial court recognized, citing State v. Reed, 712 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) and Dixon v. State, 348 So. 2d 1345, 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), that the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle constituted probable cause to search all occupants; nevertheless, it concluded that the defendant was unlawfully detained because the arresting officer testified that he had intended to search the defendant for officer safety, even though there was no basis for suspicion that appellant was armed.
The trial court’s reliance on the officer’s subjective intentions is misplaced in light of Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 814, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996)(constitutional reasonableness of traffic stop not dependent on subjective motivations of individual officers) and Holland v. State, 696 So. 2d 757, 759 (Fla.1997)(rejecting “reasonable officer” test), overruling State v. Daniel, 665 So. 2d 1040 (Fla.1995).
The subjective intentions of the officers aside, the odor of burning marijuana alone provided probable cause, to search the defendant. Harvey v. State, 653 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Dixon. The detention was lawful and the evidence obtained when the defendant bolted and threw away the cocaine should not have been suppressed. We accordingly reverse and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
THOMPSON, J., and ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Robinson, 756 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…icer who made the stop as whether the officer would have stopped another vehicle for that infraction and whether he and the canine unit were on a hunt for suspected drug dealers is not relevant under the controlling case law. See State v. Chambliss, 752 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Once Robinson was legally stopped, the use of a drug-sniffing dog is not an- unconstitutional search under the fourth amendment. State v. Brooks, 662 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (Sharp, W., J., dissenting); State v. Bass, 60…
-
State v. K.V., 821 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…burnt marijuana “unquestionably” provides probable cause not only to conduct a stop of a vehicle, but also to search the entire passenger compartment and each of its occupants. See State v. Betz, 815 So. 2d 627 (Fla.2002); accord State v. Chambliss, 752 So. 2d 114, 115 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Here, the tip from the security guard, the smoke billowing out of the car, and the smell of burning marijuana gave Deputy Vazquez ample probable cause to arrest the occupants and search both their persons and the vehicle.…
-
State v. Williams, 967 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…d actual or constructive possession of marijuana. The existence of probable cause to believe that the driver of the automobile was in possession of the marijuana was particularly apparent. (Citations omitted). More recently, in State v. Chambliss, 752 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), the Fifth District held that “the odor of burning marijuana alone provided probable cause to search the defendant.” Id. Like the present case, in Chambliss the police officer initiated a traffic stop “because the tag did not mat…
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
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996)
- Holland v. State, 696 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1997)
- State v. Daniel, 665 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Reed, 712 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Harvey v. State, 653 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Rory A. Bussert v. Holley, 653 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)