NEIL RASHAD BRYANT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Neil Bryant pleaded no contest to cocaine possession after police found drugs during a search of his person following a drug dog's alert to a borrowed vehicle. The appellate court reversed, holding that the dog's alert to the car did not provide probable cause to search Bryant's person, as the dog never alerted to Bryant himself and his mere proximity to the car was insufficient.
The dog's alert to the car door and seat provided probable cause to search the vehicle, but not Bryant's person. Without an alert to Bryant himself, his mere recent proximity to a car seat where someone may have left residual narcotics odor was insufficient to establish probable cause to believe Bryant possessed narcotics, and the search of his person was illegal.
[1] A narcotics dog's alert to a vehicle's door and seat provides probable cause to search the vehicle for drugs.
[2] A narcotics dog's alert to a vehicle does not, by itself, establish probable cause to believe a person who was recently in the vehicle possesses narcotics.
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“The dog's alert to the car door and seat gave the deputy probable cause to search the vehicle for drugs. See Flowers v. State, 755 So.2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Rogers v. State, 586 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). But the dog did not alert to Bryant himself.”
Distinguishes between valid vehicle search authority and lack of probable cause for personal search
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBryant was driving a borrowed Jeep Cherokee when a deputy initiated a consensual encounter, becoming suspicious that the vehicle was stolen. During an…
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 Physical Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Neil Bryant pleaded no contest to a cocaine possession charge, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress the physical evidence against him. We conclude that the circuit court should have granted the motion to suppress. Accordingly, we reverse Bryant’s conviction and sentence.
On the evening of Bryant’s arrest he had been driving a friend’s Jeep Cherokee sport utility vehicle. A series of events that need not be detailed here led to Bryant’s consensual encounter with a Polk County Sheriffs deputy.1 Bryant told the deputy that he had borrowed the car, but the deputy suspected it was stolen. Thus the encounter began an investigatory detention, with Bryant standing outside the Jeep while the deputy’s narcotics dog sniffed it. The dog alerted to the driver’s door and then the driver’s seat, but the deputy found no drugs inside the car. Theorizing that the dog had responded to a residual narcotics odor left on the car seat by a person, the deputy began searching Bryant. He reached into Bryant’s front pockets, both of which contained cocaine.
The search of Bryant’s person was illegal. The dog’s alert to the car door and seat gave the deputy probable cause to search the vehicle for drugs. See Flowers v. State, 755 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Rogers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). But the dog did not alert to Bryant himself. Especially given the deputy’s knowledge that Bryant did not own the car (he being either a thief or a permissive user), Bryant’s mere recent proximity to a car seat on which someone at some time might have left a residual odor of narcotics fell woefully shy of establishing probable cause to believe Bryant possessed narcotics. See Rogers, 586 So. 2d at 1152.
Reversed and remanded with directions that Bryant be discharged.
BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., Concur. . In the spectrum of police-citizen interactions the least intrusive is a consensual encounter that involves only minimal police contact. See Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185, 186 (Fla. 1993). Next is an investigatory stop or investigatory detention, in which an officer may reasonably detain a person temporarily to investigate a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. See § 901.151, Fla. Slat. (1999); Popple, 626 So. 2d at 186; Allen v. State, 703 So. 2d 1162, 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cady v. State, 817 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…y also argues that the fact that the dog alerted to the passenger seat after Cady had exited the vehicle did not give the police probable cause to believe that Cady had drugs on his person. We agree, based on this court’s opinion in Bryant v. State, 779 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In Bryant, a deputy conducted a search of Neil Bryant after a drug-sniffing dog alerted to the driver’s door and the driver’s seat of the vehicle Bryant had been driving. No drugs were found inside the vehicle. This court conclud…
-
Elvershon Williams v. State, 911 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…ntences. See Cady v. State, 817 So. 2d 948, 949 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that the police did not have probable cause to search the defendant simply because a dog alerted to the vehicle that the defendant had been a passenger in); Bryant v. State, 779 So. 2d 464, 464-65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress because, although the dog alert to the vehicle gave the deputy probable cause to search the vehicle, the alert, standing alone, did not give the dep…
-
State v. Griffin, 949 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…probable cause to search Appellee’s car, but not to search her person. 911 So. 2d at 861. This court’s opinion in Williams cites two Second District cases to support its holding: Cady v. State, 817 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), and Bryant v. State, 779 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); however, the Second District recently noted that Prin-gle “may have effectively overruled our precedent involving circumstances similar to those presented here.” Perry v. State, 916 So. 2d 835, 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Although th…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tedd J. Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1993)
- Rogers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Flowers v. State, 755 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Allen v. State, 703 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)