Newman v. State

476 So. 2d 775, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2359, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16275
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 16, 1985·No. No. 85-671·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully reviewed the transcripts of the deposition and motion to suppress in this case, and it is clear to us that the investigating trooper first smelled marijuana in the subject vehicle while standing outside the vehicle — without any intrusion — and also smelled it subsequently when his head intruded into the vehicle. Accordingly, we conclude that the motion to suppress was properly denied; and we affirm.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

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

Newman v. State, 476 So. 2d 775, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2359, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16275 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

476 So. 2d 775 (Newman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Reeves
488 So. 2d 670 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
State v. Bennett
481 So. 2d 971 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)