FIRST DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS

        

THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT.  THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI.  INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.

 

DATE: Wednesday, May 28, 2025

CAPTION: STATE V. BARTON

APPEAL NO.: C-240427

TRIAL NO.: C/23/CRB/6070

KEY WORDS: FOURTH AMENDMENT — MOTION TO SUPPRESS — VEHICLE SEARCH — CANINE SNIFF 

SUMMARY: The trial court did not err in overruling defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered from her vehicle because the drug-sniffing canine’s instinctive jump that briefly breached the vehicle’s window was not an unconstitutional search where the officer did not facilitate, command, or encourage the breach.

[But see DISSENT: Because the dog entered the vehicle in an effort to do what it was trained to do — investigate to see if illegal drugs were present — a search occurred, and because the search lacked probable cause and no exceptions to the probable-cause requirement applied, the search was unconstitutional, and therefore, the motion to suppress should have been granted.]

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; BOCK, J., CONCURS and MOORE, J., DISSENTS.