 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Donaldson v. State1/2/2002
n the circumstances witnessed by the officer, the stop was founded upon a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Id. at 1240.
The State's argument that this case is similar to Tamer is not persuasive. In this case, the officer only saw Appellant pull out of a parking lot with tires squealing. Although it was 2:00 A.M., the parking lot belonged to a motel , not a building that was closed to the public at the time. Unlike the defendant in Tamer, in this case as soon as the officer initiated the traffic stop, Appellant pulled over. The officer did not observe any other unusual driving, nor any traffic infractions. Additionally, in this case the officer had no report of a crime in the area. Thus, the officer did not have any reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity when he initiated the stop.
The State further argues that the officer was justified in stopping Appellant for driving under the influence (DUI), citing Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. DeShong, 603 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). With regards to the "founded suspicion" needed to effectuate a valid stop for DUI, the second district explained:
The courts of this state have recognized that a legitimate concern for the safety of the motoring public can warrant a brief investigatory stop to determine whether a driver is ill, tired, or driving under the influence in situations less suspicious than that required for other types of criminal behavior. Id. at 1352, relied upon, Ellis v. State, 755 So. 2d 767, 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
In DeShong, a sheriff followed the defendant for a period of time to check for a possible DUI offense. The sheriff observed the defendant use lane markers to position his vehicle. He then observed the defendant abruptly slow from 55 to 30 miles per hour and then accelerate rapidly for no apparent reason. 603 So. 2d at 1350. The sheriff stopped the vehicle because he found the driving behavior "erratic." The second district determined that the driving behavior was sufficient to establish a founded suspicion and to validate a DUI stop. Id. at 1352.
This case is distinguishable from DeShong. In this case, the officer simply observed squealing tires , not any erratic driving over a period of time. Additionally, the officer indicated that at the time there were no other cars on the road or in the parking lot that would have been endangered by Appellant squealing his tires. Thus, there was no evidence that Appellant drove in a sufficiently unsafe manner to validate a DUI stop.
The officer did not have probable cause to believe that Appellant committed a traffic infraction nor did he have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity nor of DUI, rendering the stop illegal. Thus, the trial court erred when it denied defense counsel's motion to suppress the controlled substances found as a result of that illegal stop. Accordingly, Appellant's conviction and sentence are reversed.
REVERSED.
STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.
|