FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4068

_____________________________

DELVIN DAWSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Brantley S. Clark, Jr., Judge.

August 30, 2018

M.K. THOMAS, J.

Delvin Dawson pled guilty to possession of marijuana and 

possession of a controlled substance, but reserved his right to 

appeal the trial court’s denial of his Motion to Suppress, in which 

he alleged evidence supporting his conviction was obtained as a

result of an illegal search of his person. We affirm the conviction 

and sentence, but write to explain why his arrest and subsequent 

search were supported by probable cause. 

Inside a nightclub, an off-duty officer observed Dawson and 

another man smoking what appeared to be marijuana. The offduty officer informed Investigator Hearn of the Panama City 

Police Department of the suspected illicit activity and provided a 

detailed description of the men. As a result of the tip, Investigator 

Hearn dressed in plain clothes and entered the nightclub. He 

easily located the two males described by the off-duty officer. 
2

Positioning himself near the two men, Investigator Hearn soon 

smelled burnt marijuana. He isolated the smell to the area 

occupied by the two men. A short time later, he witnessed Dawson

smoking what he believed was a marijuana cigarette. Investigator 

Hearn then notified backup officers, who escorted Dawson out of 

the nightclub. Dawson was arrested and searched incident to 

arrest. The search uncovered an unsmoked marijuana blunt and 

a baggie filled with a controlled substance.

Dawson alleges probable cause did not exist to arrest and 

subsequently search him because a finding of probable cause 

must be particularized to a specific individual. See Ybarra v. 

Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1979) (holding that “a person's mere 

propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal 

activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to 

search that person . . . Where the standard is probable cause, a 

search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable 

cause particularized with respect to that person.”). Dawson

relies on Robinson v. State, 976 So. 2d 1229, 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2008), to support his contention that the odor of marijuana 

emanating from his direction did not amount to probable cause 

sufficient to justify his arrest and subsequent search. In Robinson, 

police were combing the parking lot of a nightclub when they came 

upon a group of individuals standing together. As they approached, 

an officer smelled burnt marijuana but did not observe any of the 

individuals actually smoking. In reversing the denial of 

Robinson’s Motion to Suppress evidence seized as a result of a 

search of his person, the Second District held, “standing with a 

group of men surrounded by the odor of burned marijuana was 

insufficient to support more than a ‘mere suspicion’ that Robinson 

was in possession of marijuana” and did not provide probable cause 

for a warrantless search. Id.; see also D.H. v. State, 121 So. 2d 76, 

82 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (holding the smell of marijuana coming 

from the direction of a group of individuals does not, without 

more, provide probable cause to arrest and search any particular 

individual in that group).

This case is readily distinguishable from Robinson. Here, 

Dawson’s arrest and search were not based on one factor - the 

smell of marijuana in Dawson’s general area. Instead, multiple 
3

factors supported probable cause to arrest and search him: 1) an 

off-duty officer smelled marijuana confined to Dawson’s location; 

2) the off-duty officer observed Dawson smoking what appeared to 

be a marijuana cigarette; 3) Investigator Hearn, a second officer,

noted the smell of burnt marijuana coming from area occupied by 

Dawson; and 4) Hearn witnessed Dawson smoking what appeared 

to be a marijuana blunt. See State v. J.J., 143 So. 3d 1050, 1052

(Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (“The smell of marijuana on appellant’s 

person, combined with his handling of the cigar, provided the 

officer sufficient probable cause to effectuate a search incident to 

arrest.”). 

As probable cause to arrest was sufficiently individualized to 

Dawson, we affirm his judgment and sentence. 

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jason W. Rodriguez, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.