STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY L. BOYLE AND NEIL D. PUSHE, APPELLEES
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 appealed a trial court's suppression order in a marijuana possession case, arguing the officer had probable cause to search the vehicle based on the smell of burning marijuana combined with other circumstances. The appellate court reversed, holding that the odor of marijuana, combined with the defendants being parked at a posted no-trespassing site, provided sufficient probable cause for a warrantless search of the automobile.
The court held that the smell of burning marijuana, when combined with the circumstances of finding the car parked at a posted no-trespassing construction site at 2:45 A.M. and the driver's apparent evasive conduct, was sufficient to establish probable cause to authorize a warrantless search of the vehicle, making the search lawful regardless of the timing relative to arrest.
[1] The odor of burning marijuana, combined with other circumstances, can establish probable cause to believe a vehicle contains contraband, authorizing a warrantless search.
[2] A warrantless search of a vehicle may be justified by probable cause, independent of whether the search is incident to a lawful arrest.
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 smell of burning marijuana, when combined with the other circumstances previously recited herein, was sufficient to establish probable cause to believe the car contained contraband and to authorize its warrantless search.”
Establishes the court's holding that the combination of marijuana odor and surrounding circumstances provided probable cause for the warrantless vehicle search.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer White was patrolling Sand Key at 2:45 A.M. when he observed a car parked at a posted no-trespassing construction site. When he approached, the…
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 Search Incident To Lawful Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
The appellees were charged with the possession of marijuana seized in a search of the automobile in which they were parked. Ms. Boyle was also charged with possession of paraphernalia. The trial court, after hearing, granted appellees’ motion to suppress on the ground that the officer had searched the car prior to arresting appellees. We reverse.
Officer White, patrolman, City of Clear-water, was patrolling Sand Key at 2:45 A. M. on February 8, 1975, when he noticed a car parked at a construction site which had been posted against trespassers. When White approached the vehicle on foot, the driver began backing the car up in an apparent attempt to drive past him. White stopped the car and requested identification. When the driver, Pushe, rolled down the window to comply, White saw smoke coming from inside the vehicle and recognized the strong odor of burning marijuana.1 He had the appellees leave the car and sit on the ground. White searched the car and after finding marijuana “roaches” in the ashtray and three baggies of marijuana in the glove compartment, he advised the appellees that they were under arrest. Continuing the search, White found two baggies in Ms. Boyle’s purse and one on the ground where she had exited the vehicle. He also found a pipe in the car which a “presumptive” test showed to contain marijuana.
We need not decide whether the search of the car was properly incident to a lawful arrest. The smell of burning marijuana, when combined with the other circumstances previously recited herein, was sufficient to establish probable cause to believe the car contained contraband and to authorize its warrantless search. E. g., Berry v. State, Fla.App.1st, 1975, 316 So. 2d 72; State v. Sanders, Fla.App.2nd, 1970, 239 So. 2d 120. The persons of the appel-lees were not searched until after they were informed that they were under arrest.
The order is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur. . White had received training in recognizing the smell of marijuana and had previously smelled the drug between 500 and 1000 times.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miranda v. State, 354 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…wledgeable in the drug area identified as that of marijuana. In our view, this gave the officers probable cause to search the boat for marijuana without a search warrant. See: Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345, 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); State v. Boyle, 326 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Mattson v. State, 328 So. 2d 246, 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Berry v. State, 316 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Porter v. State, 302 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). It was impracticable to require the officers to procure a search wa…
-
State v. Wells, 516 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), cause dismissed, 466 So. 2d 217 (Fla.1985); State v. Gullett, 418 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); State v. Schneider, 401 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Dixon v. State, 343 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); State v. Boyle, 326 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The mere possession of marijuana is illegal. When a police officer who knows the smell of burning marijuana detects that odor emanating from a vehicle, or from a person who has recently exited a vehicle, he has probable cause t…
-
State v. Bowden, 538 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…f burning marijuana emanating from a car, combined with other circumstances such as time and location, is sufficient to establish probable cause to believe the car contained contraband and authorized its warrantless search by police. State v. Boyle, 326 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Once the officers seized the still warm marijuana cigarette, after smelling the burning marijuana, there was probable cause to arrest Bowden. Thereafter, the cocaine found on Bowden was seized lawfully as a search incident to an…
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
- Berry v. State, 316 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- State v. Sanders, 239 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)