RANDY DEWAYNE GIBSON, 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.
Gibson appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a vehicle search based on a drug dog alert. The court reversed, holding that under Matheson v. State, the state must introduce evidence of a narcotics dog's track record and performance history—not merely certification and training—to establish probable cause for a search.
The state cannot establish probable cause based solely on a dog's certification and training. Under Matheson v. State, the state must introduce evidence of the dog's track record and performance history, including the percentage of false alerts, to demonstrate the dog's reliability and thus probable cause for the search.
[1] A narcotics detection dog's alert alone, without evidence of its track record or performance history, does not establish probable cause for a search.
[2] To establish probable cause based on a narcotics detection dog's alert, the State must present evidence of the dog's reliability, including its track record.
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“the fact that a dog has been trained and certified to detect narcotics, standing alone, does not justify an officer's reliance on the dog's alert to establish probable cause”
Establishes the core holding that certification and training alone are insufficient; performance history must be presented
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice conducted a traffic stop of Gibson's vehicle and used a narcotics detection dog to search it. The dog alerted, leading to a search that reveale…
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 Canine Search cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Randy Dewayne Gibson appeals an order denying his dispositive motion to suppress following his nolo contendere plea to carrying a concealed firearm, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. We find no merit in Gibson’s argument that the search of his vehicle was illegal because police unreasonably delayed the traffic stop to allow a canine search of his vehicle. We do find merit, however, in Gibson’s claim that under the standard articulated in Matheson v. State, 870 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), the State failed to establish that the narcotics detection dog’s alert provided probable cause for the search. Accordingly, we reverse.
In Matheson, this court rejected the argument that the State can make a prima facie showing of probable cause for a search based on a narcotics detection dog’s alert by demonstrating that the dog has been properly trained and certified. Id. at 12.
Instead, this court held that the fact that a dog has been trained and certified to detect narcotics, standing alone, does not justify an officer’s reliance on the dog’s alert to establish probable cause. Id. at 14.
To demonstrate that an alert by a narcotics detection dog is sufficiently reliable to furnish probable cause to search, the State must introduce evidence of the dog’s “track record” or performance history. Id. Although the officer who handled the dog testified that the dog was certified and had completed 400 hours of training, the State failed to elicit any testimony from him regarding the dog’s track record. The officer admitted that drugs are not always found when the dog alerts, but he could not quantify the percentage of false alerts. Under Matheson, the officer’s testimony was inadequate to establish the dog’s reliability.
Thus, the State did not meet its burden to demonstrate that the officers had probable cause to search Gibson’s car. In reversing, we certify direct conflict with State v. Coleman, 911 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), and State v. Laveroni, 910 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), both of which hold that the State can make a prima facie showing of probable cause based on a narcotics detection dog’s alert by demonstrating that the dog has been properly trained and certified.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion; conflict certified.
WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. State, 71 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 2011)…st present to meet its burden. The decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Harris v. State, 989 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), expressly and directly conflicts with the decisions of the Second District Court of Appeal in Gibson v. State, 968 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), and Matheson v. State, 870 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).2 In Harris, the First District without elaboration cited State v. Laveroni, 910 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), and State v. Coleman, 911 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), as…1 / 2
-
Harris v. State, 989 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See State v. Laveroni, 910 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); State v. Coleman, 911 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Contra Gibson v. State, 968 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (following Matheson v. State, 870 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)). DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.…
-
Tecoy Marquis Campbell v. State, 139 So. 3d 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…he offense of arrest”). Campbell then asserted that while the K-9 officer found that there was probable cause to search his vehicle, the dog’s alert was false as no drugs or paraphernalia were found. He cited this court’s holding in Gibson v. State, 968 So. 2d 631, 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citing Matheson v. State, 870 So. 2d 8, 14 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)), that “[t]o demonstrate that an alert by a narcotics detection dog is sufficiently reliable to furnish probable cause to search, the State must introduce evidenc…
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
- Matheson v. State, 870 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- State v. Laveroni, 910 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- State v. Coleman, 911 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)