 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Donaldson v. State1/2/2002
Appellant was charged by information with two counts of possession of a controlled substance. After waiving a jury trial, the case proceeded to a bench trial. Prior to trial, defense counsel moved to suppress the controlled substance, arguing that it was seized as a result of an invalid traffic stop. After listening to the evidence, the trial court denied the motion. Appellant pled no contest to the charges, reserving the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. The State and the trial court agree that the motion to suppress was dispositive. We reverse.
On June 1, 2000, at approximately 2:00 A.M., Officer Tom Gendreau was on patrol on Federal Highway. He observed a pick-up truck, driven by Appellant, pull out of a hotel parking lot with the tires squealing.
The officer testified that he was concerned that Appellant may be impaired or fleeing from the scene of a crime. Officer Gendreau pulled in behind Appellant and initiated a traffic stop. The officer gave Appellant a written traffic warning for an improper start. At the time there were no other cars on the road that would have been endangered.
Officer Gendreau did not feel that Appellant was an impaired driver but remained concerned because Appellant appeared nervous. The officer asked Appellant why he was squealing his tires . Appellant replied that he was having problems with his clutch. The officer then asked Appellant whether he had weapons, drugs, guns or any kind of contraband. When Appellant replied that he did not, the officer asked whether he could check the car. According to the officer, Appellant replied, "yes, go ahead." Officer Gendreau found a cigarette pack in the front seat.
Inside the cigarette pack, the officer found prescription medication wrapped up in cellophane. The officer recognized the pills to be controlled substances and asked Appellant if he knew what they were. Appellant replied that some were painkillers that he got from his boss and used for back pain, and others were diet pills that he used for energy. Officer Gendreau placed Appellant under arrest.
Defense counsel argued the stop was not valid because Appellant did not commit a traffic infraction. The State argued it was a valid stop because the officer had articulable grounds to believe Appellant either committed a traffic infraction or was coming from the scene of a crime.
The trial judge stated that he did not know whether Appellant committed a traffic infraction. The trial judge found the officer had reasonable, articulable grounds to believe there was a traffic infraction and that it was improper driving. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress on those grounds.
On review, the appellate court is required to accept the trial court's determinations of the historical facts leading to a search; however, a defendant is entitled to a de novo review of whether the application of the law to the historical facts establish an adequate basis for the trial court's finding of probable cause. See Ornelas v. U.S., 517 U.S. 690, 696-97 (1996); Porter v. State, 765 So. 2d 76, 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
Appellant asserts that the controlled substances should have been suppressed because they were seized as a result of an unlawful stop and detention. The State argues there was a valid traffic stop because Officer Gendreau had probable cause to believe that Appellant committed a traffic infraction.
In Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), the United States Supreme Court held that under the Fourth Amendment, an officer's reasons for a stop of an automobile are immaterial as long as the officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. I
Page 1 2 3 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|