State v. Chambliss

752 So. 2d 114, 2000 WL 235147
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 3, 2000
Docket5D99-2235
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 752 So. 2d 114 (State v. Chambliss) 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
State v. Chambliss, 752 So. 2d 114, 2000 WL 235147 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

752 So.2d 114 (2000)

STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Roy Edward CHAMBLISS, Appellee.

No. 5D99-2235.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

March 3, 2000.

*115 Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Denise O. Simpson, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

GRIFFIN, J.

The state appeals an order suppressing evidence obtained during a traffic stop. The appellee was a passenger in a vehicle stopped because the tag did not match the car. When the officer approached the vehicle, he detected the "strong smell" of marijuana. He had all three occupants exit the vehicle. After back-up arrived, the appellee bolted. Before being apprehended, he took a pill bottle from his pocket and threw it (onto the roof of the police cruiser). The bottle contained cocaine, which is the subject of the suppression order.

The trial court recognized, citing State v. Reed, 712 So.2d 458 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) and Dixon v. State, 343 So.2d 1345, 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), that the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle constituted probable cause to search all occupants; nevertheless, it concluded that the defendant was unlawfully detained because the arresting officer testified that he had intended to search the defendant for officer safety, even though there was no basis for suspicion that appellant was armed. The trial court's reliance on the officer's subjective intentions is misplaced in light of Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 814, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996)(constitutional reasonableness of traffic stop not dependent on subjective motivations of individual officers) and Holland v. State, 696 So.2d 757, 759 (Fla.1997)(rejecting "reasonable officer" test), overruling State v. Daniel, 665 So.2d 1040 (Fla.1995). The subjective intentions of the officers aside, the odor of burning marijuana alone provided probable cause to search the defendant. Harvey v. State, 653 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Dixon. The detention was lawful and the evidence obtained when the defendant bolted and threw away the cocaine should not have been suppressed. We accordingly reverse and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

THOMPSON, J., and ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, concur.

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

Related

Interest of K.V.
2021 ND 79 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 2021)
State v. Hadley
410 P.3d 140 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2017)
Lessley v. CITY OF MADISON, IND.
654 F. Supp. 2d 877 (S.D. Indiana, 2009)
State of Tennessee v. Triston Lee Harris
280 S.W.3d 832 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2008)
State of Tennessee v. Triston Lee Harris - Dissenting
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2008
State v. Jennings
968 So. 2d 694 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
State v. Williams
967 So. 2d 941 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
State v. KV
821 So. 2d 1127 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
State v. Robinson
756 So. 2d 249 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
752 So. 2d 114, 2000 WL 235147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chambliss-fladistctapp-2000.