Demarcus Johnquez Smith v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledSeptember 23, 2026
Docket1D2025-0497
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2025-0497
_____________________________
DEMARCUS JOHNQUEZ SMITH,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.
Lacey P. Clark, Judge.
September 23, 2026
LONG, J.
Appellant, Demarcus Johnquez Smith, argues that the trial
court improperly denied his motion to suppress because the smell
of burnt cannabis coming from inside his vehicle could not provide
probable cause for law enforcement to search his vehicle. This
argument is without merit. It is unlawful to smoke cannabis, even
“medical marijuana,” inside of a vehicle. See § 381.986(1)(k)(5)f.,
Fla. Stat. We note, nevertheless, that the law enforcement officers
who searched the vehicle had a wealth of other evidence, including:
(1) Appellant’s nonanswer to being asked whether he had a
medical marijuana license combined with his admission that he
had marijuana in the vehicle, (2) Appellant’s apparent shock at the
initial officer’s approach, (3) Appellant’s presence in an area
known for frequent narcotics crimes, and (4) Appellant’s persistent
efforts to prevent law enforcement from discovering the contents
of a cellophane baggy that he had in his hand, including stomping
on the baggy after dropping it on the ground. See, e.g., State v.
Simpson, 414 So. 3d 291, 297–98 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (finding that
the smell of marijuana was enough to establish probable cause
given that the marijuana was smelled in an area that was well-
known for illicit drug activity). We find that the trial court did not
err in concluding that the law enforcement officers had probable
cause for the search.
Appellant also generally challenges the legality of his initial
detention, which preceded some of the acts listed above. But
Appellant’s brief only addresses probable cause and neglects any
argument regarding the reasonable suspicion that is required for
an investigatory detention. See Ikner v. State, 756 So. 2d 1116,
1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Accordingly, Appellant fails to
demonstrate that the initial detention—which ultimately led to
the search—was unlawful.
AFFIRMED.
OSTERHAUS, C.J., and KELSEY, J., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Tyler K. Payne, Assistant
Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Miranda Lee Butson,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2