STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MAIAOSHAAD DEAUNDRE DORSEY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed suppression of evidence where trial court implicitly found police officers not credible regarding detection of marijuana odor, barring the warrantless search under either probable cause or Terry stop theories.
A trial court's implicit credibility finding against police officers regarding marijuana odor detection supports suppression of evidence from a warrantless search, regardless of whether probable cause or Terry stop justification is invoked.
[1] A trial court's implicit credibility determination against police officers, made during a suppression hearing without explicit findings, is binding on appeal if supported…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A reviewing court is bound by the trial court's findings of fact — even if only implicit— made after a suppression hearing, unless they are clearly erroneous.”
Standard of review for trial court findings in suppression hearings, citing State v. Setzler.
Dorsey was a passenger in a car when police conducted a warrantless search. The police officers testified about detecting marijuana odor on Dorsey's p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standard Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
KAHN, J.
The trial court granted appellee Dorsey’s motion to suppress certain evidence, but declined to make specific findings of fact, particularly concerning the credibility of the testimony of several police officers. The record reveals a conflict in the testimony of the officers concerning whether an odor of marijuana was defectible on either Dorsey’s person or in the car in which Dorsey was a passenger. “A reviewing court is bound by the trial court’s findings of fact — even if only implicit— made after a suppression hearing, unless they are clearly erroneous.” State v. Setzler, 667 So. 2d 343, 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). “We must construe all the evidence, and reasonable inferences therefrom, in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.” Hines v. State, 737 So. 2d 1182, 1184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The trial judge here made an implicit finding concerning the credibility of several officers who testified, and circumstances on this record support this implicit finding. Given this finding, we need not be concerned whether the State proceeded on the theory that probable cause justified the search, or the theory that the officers acted pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), as under either theory, the credibility determination bars the warrantless search that took place.
AFFIRMED.
LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kardel K. Snow v. State, 352 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…findings of fact in an order denying a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 776.032.” See Lewis, 251 So. 3d at 311. Further, factual findings and credibility determinations may be implied from the trial court’s ultimate ruling. See State v. Dorsey, 991 So. 2d 393, 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“A reviewing court is bound by the trial court’s findings of fact—even if only implicit—made after a suppression hearing, unless they are clearly erroneous.” (quoting State v. Setzler, 667 So. 2d 343, 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995…
-
Fredrick Brown v. State, 247 So. 3d 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…ling.” Murray v. State, 692 So. 2d 157, 159 (Fla. 1997). Here, there was evidence that Brown’s license was suspended at the time of the arrest, and we conclude that this evidence supports the trial court’s ultimate decision. See State v. Dorsey, 991 So. 2d 393, 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (affirming order on motion to suppress after noting conflict in testimony but concluding that “[t]he trial judge here made an implicit finding concerning the credibility of several officers who testified, and circumstanc…
Authorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- State v. Setzler, 667 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Hines v. State, 737 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)