ROBERT JOHN MCGOWAN, 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.
Robert McGowan appeals his marijuana possession conviction based on a nolo contendere plea with reservation of right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the police officer had probable cause to stop and search McGowan's vehicle based on the trained officer's detection of marijuana odor and the suspicious circumstances of the vehicle being parked in an isolated, wooded area at night.
The court held that arriving in a secluded, wooded area at night, finding a vehicle with occupants parked with lights out, and detecting a strong odor of marijuana gave the officer probable cause that a crime was being committed. The trained officer's detection of marijuana odor is sufficient probable cause to conduct a search, and the fact that the officer requested the evidence rather than conducting a search warrant-based search does not render the evidence inadmissible.
[1] The detection of a strong odor of marijuana by a trained officer, coupled with other suspicious circumstances such as a vehicle parked in an isolated area at night with i…
[2] The exigency of potential destruction of evidence can justify a warrantless search when probable cause exists.
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“Arriving in a secluded, wooded area in the dark of night, finding a vehicle containing two occupants parked with its lights out and detecting a strong odor of marijuana gave the officer probable cause that a crime was being committed.”
Establishes the court's holding that the totality of circumstances provided probable cause for the initial stop and search.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcGowan and a friend were parked at night on a dirt road in an isolated, wooded area with windows open and lights out. A police officer trained to det…
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 Odor Of Marijuana As Probable Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
MOORE, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for possession of marijuana which was predicated upon a nolo contendere plea with reservation of right to appeal the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
Appellant and a friend were parked at night on a dirt road in a somewhat isolated, wooded area when a police unit pulled alongside. Both vehicles had the windows open and the police officer who had been trained at the police academy to detect the odor of marijuana did in fact detect a strong odor of the substance. He also witnessed appellant “lean forward as if to put a cigarette or something of that nature out in the ashtray.”
Under the circumstances the officer requested appellant and his companion to exit their vehicle whereupon he told appellant what he had smelled and advised that if they had any more of the unburned substance that he wanted it. Appellant reached in his vehicle and retrieved a baggie which contained suspect marijuana and handed it to the officer. Appellant was then placed under arrest and advised of his “Miranda rights.”
Upon further questioning appellant opened his trunk and handed the officer additional marijuana. These were two other instances where marijuana was found but these are not the subject of this appeal.
Arriving in a secluded, wooded area in the dark of night, finding a vehicle containing two occupants parked with its lights out and detecting a strong odor of marijuana gave the officer probable cause that a crime was being committed. Under these circumstances, the evidence of such crime could well have vanished if a search warrant had been sought. It has been held that the detection of an odor of marijuana by one trained to detect such odor is sufficient probable cause to conduct a search. See Berry v. State, 316 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) and State v. Jones, 222 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). The fact that the officer requested appellant to hand him any remaining unburned substance in lieu of conducting an otherwise valid search should not militate against admission of such evidence so obtained.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. John v. State, 356 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…, Davis v. State, 350 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). It is not a search for an officer to observe contraband in plain view, or as here, to detect the odor of marijuana from a place where he has a right to be. State v. Ashby, supra; McGowan v. State, 351 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). In this ease, however, the police officer testified that he did not see or smell marijuana until he put his head inside the car, where the officer did not have a right to be without probable cause to believe that the automobile…
-
State v. Bennett, 481 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…gal conclusion, we think that the odor of marijuana emanating from a car or a driver who recently exited his car, is sufficient probable cause to justify a search of the car. See Newman v. State, 476 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); McGowan v. State, 351 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Berry v. State, 316 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); State v. Jones, 222 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1969). Compare: Brown v. State, 330 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (error not to suppress because police officer only suspected odor…
-
Mead v. State, 381 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…d DCA 1977); Berry v. State, 316 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), and probable cause to search the defendant’s vehicle; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), adopted by § 933.19, Fla.Stat. (1979); McGowan v. State, 351 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), based on Trooper B. A. Adriance’s testimony that he smelled a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the defendant’s vehicle prior to stopping the vehicle, arresting the defendant driver and searching the said vehicle; and (b)…
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
- Berry v. State, 316 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- State v. Jones, 222 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)