Dawson v. State

• Decision Date: 30 August 2018
• Docket Number: No. 1D17-4068,1D17-4068
• Citation: 253 So.3d 766
• Parties: Delvin DAWSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

253 So.3d 766

Delvin DAWSON, Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4068

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

August 30, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jason W. Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

M.K. Thomas, J.

Delvin Dawson pled guilty to possession of marijuana and possession of a controlled substance, but reserved his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his Motion to Suppress, in which he alleged evidence supporting his conviction was obtained as a result of an illegal search of his person. We affirm the conviction and sentence, but write to explain why his arrest and subsequent search were supported by probable cause.

Inside a nightclub, an off-duty officer observed Dawson and another man smoking what appeared to be marijuana. The off-duty officer informed Investigator Hearn of the Panama City Police Department of the suspected illicit activity and provided a detailed description of the men. As a result of the tip, Investigator Hearn dressed in plain clothes and entered the nightclub. He easily located the two males described by the off-duty officer. Positioning himself near the two men, Investigator Hearn soon smelled burnt marijuana. He isolated the smell to the area occupied by the two men. A short time later, he witnessed Dawson smoking what he believed was a marijuana cigarette. Investigator Hearn then notified backup officers, who escorted Dawson out of the nightclub. Dawson was arrested and searched incident to arrest. The search uncovered an unsmoked marijuana blunt and a baggie filled with a controlled substance.

Dawson alleges probable cause did not exist to arrest and subsequently search him because a finding of probable cause must be particularized to a specific individual. See Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91, 100 S.Ct. 338, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979) (holding that "a person's mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person ... Where the standard is probable cause, a search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that person."). Dawson relies on Robinson v. State , 976 So.2d 1229, 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), to support his contention that the odor of marijuana emanating from his direction did not amount to probable cause sufficient to justify his arrest and subsequent search. In Robinson , police were combing the parking lot of a nightclub when they came upon a group of individuals standing together. As they approached, an officer...