5D2023-0118
Sitting en banc, the Fifth DCA held that because hemp is now legal and indistinguishable in smell from illegal cannabis, the odor of cannabis alone can no longer establish reasonable suspicion for an investigatory detention; it is now merely one factor in the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. The court nonetheless affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress because the officer reasonably relied on then-binding Second DCA precedent (Owens) under the Davis good-faith exception, but expressly certified conflict with Owens.
Key facts
- Defendant was detained by an officer based solely on the detected odor of cannabis during a traffic stop or investigatory encounter.
- The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the detention.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a landmark, certified-conflict decision that fundamentally alters Fourth Amendment analysis for cannabis-odor stops and searches in Florida, directly conflicting with the Second DCA's Owens decision and setting… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.