 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Finizio v. State11/28/2001
urt nevertheless validated the traffic stop, stating that " ecause of the dangers inherent to our vehicular mode of life, there may be justification for the stopping of a vehicle by a patrolman to determine the reason for its unusual operation." Id. See also Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S. Ct. 2481, 110 L. Ed. 2d 412 (1990) (emphasizing the state's interest in preventing drunk driving); State v. Potter, 438 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (noting the public policy concerns surrounding the dangerousness of vehicles in general and impaired drivers in particular). Id. at 1352.
The law is well settled that in determining whether an officer possesses a reasonable or well-founded suspicion of criminal activity so as to justify an investigatory stop, "the totality of the circumstances--the whole picture--must be taken into account." Tamer v. State, 484 So. 2d 583, 584 (Fla. 1986) (quoting from United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S. Ct. 690, 695, 66 L. Ed. 2d 621, 629 (1981)). Even when none of the facts standing alone would give rise to a reasonable suspicion, when taken together as viewed by an experienced deputy as in this case, they can provide clear justification for a brief detention. Tamer, 484 So. 2d at 584.
We are not persuaded by appellant's argument that before Araujo could possess a reasonable suspicion to stop him, he had to observe his driving for an extended period of time or distance. In this case, Araujo observed him operate his truck in an unusual manner by hitting the curb with the front and back tires , speeding up and then abruptly stopping in quick succession. Under the circumstances, we conclude that an extended observation was neither possible nor necessary.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order denying appellant's motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
DELL, WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
|