State v. Foster, 79-1220
| Decision Date | 25 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1220,79-1220 |
| Citation | 390 So.2d 469 |
| Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James Robert FOSTER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Janet Reno, State Atty., for appellant.
Thomas G. Murray and Carl L. Mastzal, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SCHWARTZ, JJ.
Appellee Foster was arrested at Miami International Airport, based upon an "alert" on his suitcase by Le Dur, Detective D'Azevedo's canine companion trained in the detection of illegal drugs. Upon Foster's consent, the suitcase was opened, and a plastic bag was discovered which was thought to contain cocaine, although the contents later proved to be lactose; additionally, a small quantity of marijuana was later determined to have been in the bag. A subsequent search of Foster's person revealed a bag of cocaine in each sock. 1 The state appeals from a suppression order. We reverse.
In general, a trained narcotics dog's "alert" on luggage constitutes probable cause for a subsequent arrest. Harpold v. State, 389 So.2d 279 (1980); State v. Goodley 381 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Whether, in this particular case, Le Dur's "alert" furnished probable cause for Foster's arrest depends upon several factors succinctly gathered at 13 San Diego L.Rev. 410, 416-17 (1976):
the exact training the detector dog has received; the standards or criteria employed in selecting dogs for marijuana detection training; the standards the dog was required to meet to successfully complete his training program; the "track record" of the dog up until the search (emphasis must be placed on the amount of false alerts or mistakes the dog has furnished).
Six trial courts for the eleventh circuit have previously recognized Le Dur's olfactory capacities, generally in light of the criteria enumerated above, as capable of conferring probable cause for arrest-not including Judge Tanksley's court, sub judice. Refusal to embrace the findings of other courts regarding Le Dur's qualifications was certainly within the prerogative of the trial court; however, refusal to accept those findings does not necessarily render the subsequent arrest invalid. The question is whether the state was able to present evidence regarding Le Dur's abilities sufficient to have constituted probable cause-and thereby to justify the warrantless arrest, and body search incident thereto.
On our review of the hearing transcript, we find that the state met that burden. On direct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. State
...of the dog in the field, with an emphasis on the number of mistakes the dog has made. See id. at 14–15 (quoting State v. Foster, 390 So.2d 469, 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)). In Gibson, 968 So.2d at 631, the Second District held that the State had failed to establish that the drug-detection dog's......
-
State v. Rabb
...the skill, training, or competence of the drug detecting dog. See Matheson v. State, 870 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); State v. Foster, 390 So.2d 469, 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (addressing factors to consider to determine whether a drug dog alert is sufficient for probable cause: "the exact trai......
-
State v. Rabb
...procedure for challenging qualifications of a narcotics dog); Matheson v. State, 870 So.2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); State v. Foster, 390 So.2d 469, 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). ...
-
State v. Staten
...in three state jurisdictions have also expressly held the same. See, State v. Bullock, 460 So.2d 517 (Fla.App.1984); State v. Foster, 390 So.2d 469 (Fla.App.1980); People v. Campbell, 67 Ill.2d 308, 10 Ill.Dec. 340, 367 N.E.2d 949 (1977); Morrow v. State, 757 S.W.2d 484 (Tex.App.1988) (even......