Appeal No. BB-28
County Case No. TT99-00718A-XX
March 6, 2000

JAMES C. McKISSACK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

This is an appeal from the county court of Polk County, Judge Charles L. Brown presiding. The state charged Appellant, James McKissack, with possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of section 893.147, Florida Statutes, (1999). Appellant appeals the county court ruling denying the motion to suppress drug paraphernalia. This court has jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c). The ruling of the trial court is affirmed.

I.

In the late evening hours of Friday, January 15, 1999, Detective Peterman, of Polk County Sheriff’s Office, cited Appellant for a civil traffic infraction. Detective Peterman testified that it was his custom to search all vehicles stopped for traffic citations. Appellant refused Detective Peterman’s request to search the vehicle, and Detective Peterman called for a canine unit. Testimony established that while waiting for the canine unit, Detective Peterman also waited for teletype information on Appellant and the vehicle. He testified that the teletype information was much slower because of the time of day and the day of the week.

A canine search produced a plastic bag and a broken Bic pen. Test results on the bag were negative, and the pen was never tested. However, Appellant admitted that he had used the pen in the past to consume methamphetamine powder. At trial, defense counsel moved to suppress the broken pen. The trial judge denied the motion reasoning that the length of detention was reasonable given the circumstances.

The sole issue before this court is whether the trial court erred by denying Appellant’s motion to suppress drug paraphernalia. The admissibility of evidence is within the exclusive discretion of the trial court. San Martin v. State, 717 So.2d 462 (Fla. 1998). Such decisions are presumptively correct and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Id.

Appellant argues that the search was unreasonable for two reasons. First, officers testified that they searched with intent to find drugs. Next, Appellant argues that the delay in completing the citation was an attempt to detain Appellant until the canine unit arrived. While Appellant correctly argues that the length of a traffic stop may not last longer than the time required to issue the citation, this court finds no abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, the ruling of the county court is AFFIRMED.

ORDERED 6 March 2000.

Charles B. Curry

Chief Judge