State v. Godard
202 So. 3d 144
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Deputy Knorr responded to a call that two dogs were left in a white car at a Carrabba's with windows up and car not running on a 90° day; manager indicated dogs were unattended ~20–30 minutes.
- Deputy followed the car and stopped it as it pulled into a Days Inn about a mile away; deputy observed two shaggy dogs in the vehicle but testified he could not tell from initial look whether they were suffering.
- Deputy intended to contact the driver (Diane Godard) to identify her and investigate the dogs’ welfare; no testimony at the suppression hearing described what occurred after initial contact.
- State charged Godard with driving with license permanently revoked, DUI, and refusal to submit to testing; suppression motion argued the stop/continuation violated the Fourth Amendment.
- Trial court suppressed evidence, concluding that because the dogs did not appear in immediate distress when deputy first observed them, any continued detention violated the Fourth Amendment based on State v. Diaz.
- The Second District reversed, holding the trial court misapplied Diaz and that the deputy was permitted to contact Godard to explain the stop or continue an investigation until its purpose was completed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of contacting driver after initial objective purpose appears satisfied | State: deputy may explain reason for stop and may contact driver even if apparent purpose resolved | Godard: once purpose satisfied, deputy must end detention and cannot further contact (relying on Diaz) | Reversed trial court: Diaz does not bar an officer from explaining the stop; contact to explain or continue investigation is permissible |
| Whether deputy could continue investigation for animal cruelty / request ID | State: deputy had right to ask ID and investigate welfare (citizen informant report justified stop) | Godard: stop was completed once deputy saw dogs not in obvious distress, so further ID/checks were improper | Court: deputy's testimony showed investigation was not yet complete; he could request ID and run checks (Lanier) |
| Reliance on citizen informant vs. anonymous tip for initiating stop | State: call was from a citizen/manager who personally pointed out the vehicle; citizen tips are highly reliable so no independent corroboration needed | Godard: argues tip was effectively anonymous and uncorroborated, so stop unconstitutional | Court: manager was a known citizen informant who directly contacted officer; citizen tips presumed reliable, so stop justified |
| Appropriateness of affirming suppression under "tipsy coachman" doctrine | Godard: appellate court could affirm on alternative theory that stop lacked adequate corroboration | State: record shows known manager informant and direct identification of vehicle | Court: rejects tipsy coachman argument; factual record supports known citizen informant and reversal of suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Diaz, 850 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2003) (once the purpose of a stop is "clearly and unarguably satisfied," continued detention to investigate unrelated matters is improper except to explain the stop)
- Lanier v. State, 936 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (officer may ask for identification and run checks when stop-related investigation is ongoing)
- Baptiste v. State, 995 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2008) (anonymous tips require independent corroboration before justifying a stop)
- Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Ivey, 73 So. 3d 877 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (information from a known citizen informant is highly reliable and generally does not require independent corroboration)
- Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002) ("tipsy coachman" doctrine permits affirmance on alternative correct grounds supported by the record)