State v. Gardner
72 So. 3d 218
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Gardner charged with resisting arrest without violence and possession of cocaine with intent to sell; State appealed grant of suppression order; K-9 alerted after arrest; cocaine found in cigar tube in driver's door pocket following overnight search; trial court relied on Jaimes framework and concluded no valid automobile exception without standardized inventory/ exigent circumstances; court held search valid under automobile exception due to probable cause linked to shooting two hours earlier.
- Detective Zagar connected Gardner to the August 11, 2009 shooting via Hodges; Gardner alleged involvement with shooter; vehicle stopped two hours later; Gardner arrested after resisting; car searched at police station after impoundment.
- K-9 alert did not by itself establish probable cause under Harris v. State; but probable cause existed based on the shooting linkage and timing; No requirement for exigent circumstances after probable cause per Michigan v. Thomas and State v. Green.
- Court found Arizona v. Gant does not require arrestee to be within reach; nevertheless concluded there was reasonable belief vehicle contained evidence of offense; suppression reversed, search upheld.
- Remand for proceedings consistent with opinion; reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to search the car existed? | Gardner | State | Yes; probable cause supported the search. |
| Did the K-9 alert alone establish probable cause? | Gardner | State | No; K-9 alert insufficient by itself; but probable cause still existed. |
| Is the search permissible under the automobile exception without exigent circumstances? | Gardner | State | Yes; search valid despite impoundment due to probable cause. |
| Effect of Gant on search validity here? | Gardner | State | Gant does not bar search; probable cause persisted. |
| Was inventory search required or proper? | Gardner | State | Not applicable; court relied on probable cause, not inventory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits vehicle searches incident to arrest to proximity and evidence-based rules)
- Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1982) (car searches permissible when probable cause exists, even after impoundment)
- Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1970) (probable cause linkage to vehicle allows warrantless search)
- Beck v. State, 181 So.2d 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966) (probable cause based on specific car contents and circumstances)
- State v. Green, 943 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (exigency not required for automobile exception; focus on probable cause)
- Nowak, 1 So.3d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (probable cause assessment as a question of law, de novo review)
- Harris v. State, 71 So.3d 756 (Fla.2011) (K-9 alert alone insufficient to establish probable cause under that standard)
- Jaimes v. State, 862 So.2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (inventory-search rule for impounded vehicles)