Background
Demarcus Johnquez Smith appealed from the Okaloosa County Circuit Court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a vehicle search. Smith argued that the odor of burnt cannabis coming from inside his vehicle could not establish probable cause to search it.
Smith also generally challenged his initial detention. The appellate court noted that, beyond the cannabis odor, officers had evidence including Smith’s admission that marijuana was in the vehicle, his failure to answer whether he had a medical-marijuana license, his apparent shock at an officer’s approach, his presence in an area known for narcotics activity, and his efforts to conceal a cellophane baggy, including stomping on it after dropping it.
The Court’s Holding
The First District Court of Appeal affirmed. It held that the trial court did not err in finding probable cause for the vehicle search. Smoking cannabis, including medical marijuana, inside a vehicle remains unlawful under Florida law, and the officers also had substantial additional evidence supporting probable cause.
The court also rejected Smith’s general challenge to the initial detention. Although an investigatory detention requires reasonable suspicion, Smith’s appellate brief addressed only probable cause and did not develop an argument concerning reasonable suspicion. He therefore failed to show that the detention was unlawful.
Key Takeaways
- The odor of burnt cannabis in a vehicle may support probable cause where smoking cannabis in the vehicle is unlawful.
- Additional circumstances, including admissions, concealment efforts, and the surrounding context, strengthened probable cause here.
- An appellant must specifically argue the reasonable-suspicion issue to challenge an investigatory detention on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Florida’s medical-marijuana regime does not authorize smoking cannabis inside a vehicle. It also illustrates that courts assess probable cause under the totality of the circumstances, rather than isolating the marijuana odor from other observed conduct.
For appellate practitioners, the case underscores that a broad assertion challenging a detention is insufficient when the briefing does not address the distinct reasonable-suspicion standard.