Rogers v. State
1991 WL 155885, 586 So. 2d 1148 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Mere proximity to contraband found within a vehicle is insufficient, by itself, to create probable cause to arrest a passenger for constructive possession of that contraband. To establish probable cause for such an arrest, there must be specific facts giving rise to a reasonable belief that the passenger knew of the contraband, understood its illicit nature, and exercised dominion and control over it.
Facts:
- An informant under arrest told Officer Kirchgraber that a man named Charles Rogers would arrive at El Gordo's Restaurant after 10:00 p.m. in a burgundy mini-van with a black bra.
- The informant stated Rogers would have ounces of cocaine in white envelopes in the compartments behind the van's front seats, and that his girlfriend, Shelly Tam, would be with him.
- The informant admitted he had not personally seen Rogers in actual possession of cocaine that evening.
- Police observed a van matching the description, registered to Rogers, arrive at the restaurant with Rogers driving and Tam in the front passenger seat.
- After Rogers refused a consent search of the van, a police K-9 unit was brought to the scene.
- The dog alerted to the presence of narcotics in the seat pocket attached to the back of the front passenger seat where Tam had been sitting.
- Police discovered several white envelopes containing cocaine in the pockets behind both front seats.
- After finding the cocaine in the van, an officer demanded Tam's purse, searched it, and found 29.5 grams of cocaine inside.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Rogers was charged with drug trafficking and Shelly Tam was charged with drug possession in a Florida trial court.
- Both Rogers and Tam filed motions to suppress the evidence found in the van and the purse, arguing the stop and searches were unconstitutional.
- The trial court denied both motions to suppress.
- Following the denial of their motions, Rogers and Tam each pled nolo contendere (no contest), reserving their right to appeal the court's ruling on the suppression motions.
- Rogers and Tam, as appellants, appealed the trial court's adverse ruling to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the discovery of contraband in a vehicle, following a valid investigatory stop, create probable cause to arrest a passenger who was merely present and to conduct a search of their personal belongings?
Opinions:
Majority - Patterson, J.
No, the discovery of contraband in a vehicle does not, without more, create probable cause to arrest a passenger and search their belongings. While the corroborated informant's tip provided founded suspicion for the initial stop and ripened into probable cause to search the van and arrest the driver, Rogers, it did not create individualized probable cause as to the passenger, Tam. To arrest Tam for constructive possession, the police needed a reasonable belief that she knew of the cocaine, knew it was illegal, and had dominion and control over it. Mere proximity to the contraband is insufficient to establish these elements for probable cause purposes. The informant did not implicate Tam in possessing drugs, the K-9 did not alert on her person, and there were no other facts linking her to the cocaine in the van. Therefore, her arrest was not supported by probable cause, and the subsequent search of her purse was unlawful.
Dissenting - Danahy, A.C.J.
Yes, the discovery of contraband provided probable cause to arrest the passenger. The majority incorrectly applies the higher standard of proof required for a conviction at trial, rather than the lower 'probable cause' standard applicable to an arrest. The totality of the circumstances—including the informant's specific, verified tip naming Tam and linking her to Rogers, her presence in the front passenger seat within easy reach of the contraband, and the discovery of the drugs exactly where predicted—provided a reasonable basis to believe she was involved in the criminal activity. Probable cause to arrest Tam arose the moment the dog discovered the cocaine in the van, making the subsequent search of her purse a valid search incident to a lawful arrest. The officer's subjective belief about when probable cause arose is irrelevant; the objective facts supported the arrest.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the Fourth Amendment's requirement of individualized suspicion, clarifying that probable cause is not a matter of group liability. The court draws a critical line between probable cause to search a vehicle and probable cause to arrest its occupants, reaffirming the principle from United States v. Di Re that a person's mere presence, even in a private vehicle where contraband is found, is not enough to justify an arrest. The decision serves as a crucial check on police authority, preventing the automatic arrest of all passengers when drugs are discovered in a car. It forces law enforcement to articulate specific facts linking each individual to the contraband before making an arrest based on a theory of constructive possession.
Unlock the full brief for Rogers v. State