HOPE MICHELLE GREEN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Hope Michelle Green appeals her conviction for methamphetamine trafficking, challenging the denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless dog sniff conducted during a traffic stop. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the dog sniff occurred within the lawful scope of the traffic stop, and remanded to correct a clerical error in the cost assessment.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the suppression motion, concluding that the dog sniff did not constitute an unlawful prolongation of the traffic stop because it occurred within approximately five minutes of initiation and before the officer had written the traffic warning.
[1] A dog sniff of a vehicle's exterior during a traffic stop is lawful if conducted within a reasonable time after the stop's initiation and before the officer has completed…
[2] A clerical error in a written cost judgment that conflicts with the trial court's oral pronouncement at sentencing may be corrected on remand.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 sniff was performed within approximately five minutes of the initiation of the traffic stop and the investigating officer had not yet written the traffic violation warning—and based on its conclusion from these facts, which we review de novo, that the search was not unlawful”
Establishes the court's factual and legal basis for upholding the suppression motion denial based on timing and procedural stage of the stop
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGreen was stopped in traffic by deputies. During the stop, law enforcement conducted a drug-detection dog sniff on the exterior of her vehicle. The do…
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 Clerical Error In Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2023-0835 Lower Tribunal No. 2018-CF-002599
_____________________________
HOPE MICHELLE GREEN,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County.
Donald H. Mason, Judge.
December 20, 2024 LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge. Hope Michelle Green appeals her judgment and sentence for trafficking in methamphetamine, 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams, and possession of drug paraphernalia.1 Green tendered an open, nolo contendere plea to these charges,
with an express reservation of the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of her dispositive amended motion to suppress evidence seized by law enforcement during
a warrantless search conducted during a traffic stop. Green argues that the trial court erred in not suppressing the evidence because the deputies unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop to allow a drug-detection dog to sniff the exterior of her vehicle.
Concluding that competent substantial evidence from the hearing held on
Green’s suppression motion supports the trial court’s factual findings that the dog sniff was performed within approximately five minutes of the initiation of the traffic stop and the investigating officer had not yet written the traffic violation warning—
and based on its conclusion from these facts, which we review de novo, that the search was not unlawful—we affirm. See Flowers v. State, 290 So. 3d 642, 644 (Fla.
1st DCA 2020) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that the search of his vehicle was unlawful because the law enforcement officer unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff of the vehicle when the dog sniff occurred within twelve minutes of the stop and the investigating officer had not yet written the traffic citation).
Green separately challenges a clerical error in the written cost judgment that assessed the sum of $1,100 for the costs of prosecution under section 938.27(8),
Florida Statutes (2018), when the trial court’s oral pronouncement during sentencing assessed this cost at $100. The State has properly conceded error, with which we agree.2
Accordingly, we affirm Green’s judgment and sentence, but remand for the entry of an amended costs final judgment that corrects this clerical error. Green need not be present for this ministerial correction.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.
STARGEL and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur. Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Flowers v. State, 290 So. 3d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
- Summerson v. State, 374 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)