Barrett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barrett v. State

844 So. 2d 802, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7050, 2003 WL 21076988

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-2522

StatusPublished

This text of 844 So. 2d 802 (Barrett v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barrett v. State, 844 So. 2d 802, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7050, 2003 WL 21076988 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the order denying his motion to suppress cannibas found in his vehicle during a police investigatory stop. Stripped to its essence, he argues that the police officer’s testimony was not credible and thus did not justify the stop.

The officer testified that he smelled marijuana as he approached the vehicle; this constitutes probable cause to conduct a search. See State v. Betz, 815 So.2d 627, 633 (Fla.2002). That the officer faile'd to include this important detail in his police reports goes to the credibility of his testimony. However, we defer to the trial court’s findings of historical fact. See Curtis v. State, 748 So.2d 370, 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). “It is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court by reevaluating the evidence presented below.” State v. Melendez, 392 So.2d 587, 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Affirmed.

STONE, WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the order denying his motion to suppress cannibas found in his vehicle during a police investigatory stop. Stripped to its essence, he argues that the police officer’s testimony was not credible and thus did not justify the stop.

The officer testified that he smelled marijuana as he approached the vehicle; this constitutes probable cause to conduct a search. See State v. Betz, 815 So.2d 627, 633 (Fla.2002). That the officer faile'd to include this important detail in his police reports goes to the credibility of his testimony. However, we defer to the trial court’s findings of historical fact. See Curtis v. State, 748 So.2d 370, 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). “It is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court by reevaluating the evidence presented below.” State v. Melendez, 392 So.2d 587, 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Affirmed.

STONE, WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

844 So. 2d 802, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7050, 2003 WL 21076988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack