ELVERSHON WILLIAMS, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed drug convictions where police lacked probable cause to search the defendant's person based solely on a police dog's alert to his vehicle.
A police dog's alert to a vehicle does not, standing alone, provide probable cause to arrest or search the defendant's person.
[1] A police dog's alert to a vehicle provides probable cause to search the vehicle but does not, standing alone, provide probable cause to arrest or search the defendant's p…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 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”
Citing Cady v. State for the principle that dog alerts alone are insufficient for personal searches
Elvershon Williams was convicted after police searched his person following a police dog's alert to his vehicle.…
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 Fourth Amendment Protections cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Elvershon Williams, seeks reversal of his convictions and sentences, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the fact that the police dog alerted to his vehicle, in and of itself, did not provide the officers with probable cause to arrest him and search his person. We agree and, therefore, reverse the convictions and sentences. 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 deputy probable cause to search the defendant’s person); see also State v. Gibson, 141 Idaho 277, 108 P. 3d 424, 433 (2005) (holding that the dog alert, which provided probable cause to search the defendant’s vehicle, did not provide probable cause to arrest and search the defendant for possession of contraband).
REVERSED.
DAVIS, BROWNING and LEWIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Williams, 967 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…4th DCA 2002). We distinguish the cases which hold that law enforcement officers do not have probable cause to search the person of an occupant of a vehicle based solely on a trained police dog alerting to the vehicle. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 911 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Generally, a trained dog’s alert on a vehicle may constitute probable cause to search the vehicle. See Denton v. State, 524 So. 2d 495, 498 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). While a trained narcotics dog’s keen sense of smell makes the animal…
-
State v. Griffin, 949 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…a law enforcement’s dog alert on her vehicle. The trial court found that the officers did not have probable cause to search Appellee because a dog alert provides probable cause to search only the car. Because we are constrained by Williams v. State, 911 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), we affirm the trial court’s suppression of the evidence. Were we to address for the first time whether a dog alert provided probable cause to search Appellee, we would reverse the trial court’s order based on Maryland v. Pringle…1 / 2
-
Rehm v. State, 931 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…the officer was engaged in a search for weapons. It is well established that a dog alert to a vehicle, or a seat in a vehicle, does not, in and of itself, provide sufficient probable cause to search the driver or a passenger. See Williams v. State, 911 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (reversing conviction based upon search of a person conducted following drug dog alert to vehicle); Matheson v. State, 870 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), rev. granted, 880 So. 2d 1212 (Fla.2004), rev. dismissed, 896 So. 2d 748 (Fla…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bryant v. State, 779 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Cady v. State, 817 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)