| | | |
Home /
Appellate Court Affirms Circuit Court's Ruling DenyingDefendant's Motion to Suppress in Drug Case  Uploading ....It's not uncommon for police to utilize a drug-dog in an attempt to find narcotics when the driver of a vehicle will not give police officer consent to search his or her car. What a lot of people do not know is that narcotics-dogs do not always provide accurate results. Even though defendant did not prevail in the case below, the case is a good example of how the state is required to provide evidence that the narcotics-dog is accurate & reliable to a certain point.
In the matter of Blalock v The State of Florida, the 1st District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence regarding the charge of possession of marijuana which was located subsequent to a canine sniff & alert during a traffic stop. The circuit court only examined if the narcotics-dog's alert did or did not provide the officers at the scene probable cause for the search since the state didn't establish the narcotics-dog's accuracy pursuant to relevant case law.
The defendant stated that, when applying the "totality of the circumstances" analysis, the matter must be reversed being that State of Florida didn't introduce evidence of the dog's accuracy in the field, including deployment & success & failure statistics. The First District Court of Appeal did not agree, noting that the testifying officer/handler for the narcotics-dog testified as to the field performance of the dog. Moreover, the canine's records, despite not being admitted into evidence, which is preferable, were provided to the defendant's attorney, who had used them while cross-examining the officer in the initial motion to suppress hearing. The appellate court also disagreed with the defendant's contention that the narcotic's dog's field performance indicated the dog wasn't sufficiently reliable to provide probable cause. The court held that based on the low standard of proof for probable cause. "Probable cause exists ‘when there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Applying the lower standard of proof there were grounds to search the defendant's truck when the canine's success rate was fifty-two percent, as this indicates the presence of narcotics by greater than a preponderance of the evidence, thus exceeding the fair probability requirement of probable cause. The trial court also noted that the state presented substantial evidence concerning both the dog & the handling officer's training & experience, which along with the evidence of successful field performance, supplied the trial court adequate basis to judge the drug-dog's accuracy under the totality of the circumstances as is required.
For further information on Dui Attorney Miami FL , Criminal Attorney Florida please contact us at: The Law Offices of Rosenberg and Dye 201 South Biscayne Boulevard
28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
(305)429-3285
|
|
|
| | | |
|