On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.London M. Kite, Judge.
Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Joseph R. Chloupek,Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Darcy Townsend, AssistantAttorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
November 8, 2024
HARRIS, J.
On December 20, 2022, a deputy with the JacksonvilleSheriff’s Office stopped an Uber vehicle for running a stop sign.Leggett was the backseat passenger in that vehicle. As the deputyapproached the vehicle, he noted a strong odor of marijuanacoming through an open window. Based solely on that odor, thedeputy searched a backpack found next to Leggett, which
Original opinion page 2
2contained a firearm and significant amounts of several controlledsubstances. Leggett moved to suppress all of the evidence found inthe backpack, arguing that the smell of marijuana by itself nolonger provides probable cause for a warrantless search. The courtdenied the dispositive motion, accepted Leggett’s guilty plea andsentenced him to 30 years in prison as a habitual felony offender.On appeal, Leggett relies heavily on this court’s recentopinion in Baxter v. State,1 where we concluded that the odor ofcannabis alone can no longer “be the sole basis supportingreasonable suspicion for an investigatory detention.” 389 So. 3d803, 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024). While Leggett’s reliance in thisappeal on Baxter is reasonable, the caveat in Baxter remains truehere—because the deputy “reasonably relied on binding precedentat the time of the arrest,” this search “comes within the good-faithexception and is not properly subject to the exclusionary rule.”Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 249 (2011).AFFIRMED.EDWARDS, C.J., and WALLIS, JJ., concur._____________________________Not final until disposition of any timely andauthorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or9.331._____________________________1 Leggett’s arrest occurred over a year before the issuance ofthe Baxter opinion.
Opinion text and original PDF from Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal · Source opinion