THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RAY DONALD OGBURN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appealed a trial court's order suppressing cocaine found during a traffic stop of Ogburn's rental vehicle. The appellate court reversed, holding that the stop was lawful based on an observed traffic violation (illegal crossing of double yellow lines), regardless of the officer's suspicion that the vehicle was stolen.
The stop was lawful because the officer observed a legitimate traffic violation (crossing double yellow lines) before effectuating the stop. The subjective suspicion that the vehicle was stolen is irrelevant when an objective traffic violation provides independent justification for the stop.
[1] A traffic stop is lawful if the officer observes the driver commit a traffic violation, regardless of any other suspicions the officer may have.
[2] An investigatory stop for a traffic violation is not invalidated by the officer's suspicion of unrelated criminal activity.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A lawful investigatory stop for a traffic violation is not invalidated by the fact that an officer would not have stopped a defendant but for the suspicion that the defendant was involved in criminal activity.”
This states the key legal principle that an observed traffic violation provides independent justification for a stop, regardless of officer motivation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo FDLE agents observed Ogburn driving a late-model Lincoln Continental with out-of-state plates on State Road 836, moving slower than traffic. The a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Traffic Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a state appeal from an order of the trial court granting Donald Ogburn’s motion to suppress. For the reasons which follow, we reverse.
Donald Ogburn was driving a late model Lincoln Continental with an out-of-state license plate eastbound on State Road 836 (the Dolphin Expressway). Two Florida Department of Law Enforcement agents driving in separate vehicles noticed Ogburn because his vehicle was causing a problem by moving slower than the stream of traffic. The agents had a radio conversation between themselves about Ogburn and his vehicle, concluding that Ogburn’s vehicle might have been stolen. While this conversation was going on, all three vehicles continued eastbound on the expressway. As the vehicles approached an exit, Ogburn indicated with his directional signal that he was leaving the expressway and moved into the exit lane. At the last minute, he changed the course of his vehicle and re-entered the expressway. While moving from the exit lane back onto the expressway, he illegally crossed double yellow lines. Og-bum was then pulled over by one of the officers. Ogburn failed to produce a driver’s license or vehicle registration. He did produce a rental car contract indicating the vehicle was rented from a South Carolina car company; however, he was not listed as an authorized driver on the contract. Ogburn was arrested for failure to produce a valid driver’s license. When the other officer looked inside the car, he found a brown bag under the driver’s seat. The bag contained cocaine.
The trial court granted the motion to suppress on the stated basis that “the testimony is clear that the officer had no founded suspicion to stop the Defendant’s car as he was under the mistaken belief that the car was stolen.” Whether the agent’s suspicion that the car had been stolen was a “founded suspicion” is irrelevant because there is no question that he observed Ogburn commit a traffic violation before effectuating the stop. A lawful investigatory stop for a traffic violation is not invalidated by the fact that an officer would not have stopped a defendant but for the suspicion that the defendant was involved in criminal activity. State v. Irvin, 483 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Bascoy v. State, 424 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Crummie v. State, 367 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Thus, the stop of Ogburn was proper. Because Ogburn was properly arrested for failing to produce his driver’s license, the subsequent search of his vehicle, which revealed contraband cocaine, was lawful. See New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768, reh’g denied, 453 U.S. 950, 102 S.Ct. 26, 69 L.Ed.2d 1036 (1981); State v. Padron, 425 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), approved, 449 So. 2d 811 (Fla.1984).
The order of suppression is accordingly reversed, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kehoe v. State, 521 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1988)…y a stop on some obscure traffic violation. As pointed out above, the district court held the instant detention justified because of the traffic violation and denied Kehoe’s pretextual stop argument. The court expressly relied upon State v. Ogburn, 483 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). In that case police officers suspected Ogbum’s car was stolen. When they witnessed him illegally crossing double yellow lines on the highway, they pulled him over and discovered cocaine in the car under the driver’s seat. The cou…
-
Hansbrough v. State, 509 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1987)…erred. We disagree. “A lawful investigatory stop for a traffic violation is not invalidated by the fact that an officer would not have stopped a defendant but for the suspicion that the defendant was involved in criminal activity.” State v. Ogburn, 483 So. 2d 500, 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Moreover, stopping a person suspected of further criminal activity for a minor traffic infraction for which any citizen could be stopped is not an unlawful pretext stop. Bascoy v. State, 424 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The…
-
State v. Kehoe, 498 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…inely been stopped, that the officer ‘possibly’ would not have stopped defendants but for further suspicion that they were also engaged in criminal activity did not render it an unlawful ‘pretext’ stop.” Id. (emphasis added). And in State v. Ogburn, 483 So. 2d 500, 501 (Fla.3d DCA 1986), the third district recently extended the rule still further in holding that where an officer observes a traffic violation and makes a stop, the stop “is not invalidated by the fact that an officer would not have stopped a def…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981)
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 453 U.S. 950 (U.S. 1981)
- Atchison v. United States, 453 U.S. 950 (U.S. 1981)
- Padron v. State, 449 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Irvin, 483 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- State v. Padron, 425 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Bascoy v. State, 424 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Ecir Pardillo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 424 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Everett, 367 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)