STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LUIS FELIPE CARRILLO, 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.
The state appeals the suppression of evidence from a DUI stop, challenging whether a police officer may stop a vehicle based on driving patterns suggesting impairment without a traffic violation. The Fifth District Court of Appeal holds that an officer may stop a vehicle based on founded suspicion of impaired driving under Florida statute, and reverses the suppression order.
A police officer may stop a vehicle based on founded suspicion that the driver is impaired, even absent a traffic violation. Once stopped, an investigation may establish probable cause for arrest under Florida's DUI statute, which authorizes arrest for a misdemeanor committed in the officer's presence or based on founded suspicion of impairment under sections 901.15(1), 901.151, and 316.193 of the Florida Statutes.
[1] A police officer may stop a vehicle based upon a founded suspicion that the driver is impaired, even if the vehicle is not violating traffic laws in the officer's presenc…
[2] A founded suspicion of driving under the influence provides a legal basis for a traffic stop.
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“Section 901.15(1), Florida Statutes (1985), authorizes an officer to arrest a person who commits a misdemeanor in his presence. Driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol is a misdemeanor per section 316.193, Florida Statutes (1985). Even in the absence of probable cause for such an arrest prior to the stop, an officer can stop a driver based upon a founded suspicion that he is driving while under the influence.”
Establishes the statutory foundation for stops and arrests based on suspected impaired driving without prior probable cause.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt approximately 2:00 A.M., Trooper Tindel observed Carrillo's vehicle weaving between the extreme right and left sides of its lane on State Road 500.…
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 Founded Suspicion cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The state timely appeals an order granting a motion to suppress made by appellee, Luis F. Carrillo, in an action charging Carrillo with driving under the influence. The specific question on appeal has been referred to this court by the county court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(4)(B). The certified question reads as follows:
WHETHER A POLICE OFFICER MAY PULL OYER A VEHICLE THAT IS NOT VIOLATING THE TRAFFIC LAWS IN THE OFFICER’S PRESENCE EVEN THOUGH THE DRIVING OF THE VEHICLE MAY LEAD THE OFFICER TO BELIEVE THAT THE DRIVER MAY BE IMPAIRED, ABSENT LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.
Carrillo’s motion alleged that the evidence was illegally seized as a product of a traffic stop which amounted to an arrest for a traffic infraction without probable cause. The testimony elicited from the arresting officer, Trooper Tindel, at the suppression hearing revealed that at approximately 2:00 A.M. he observed Carrillo driving northbound on State Road 500. Tindel saw the vehicle move to the extreme right-hand side of the road and then to the extreme left-hand side of his lane. Carrillo’s tires touched the lane boundaries, but did not leave the lane. Tindel observed Carrillo continue this pattern for approximately one-quarter of a mile, doing the weaving pattern in excess of five times. Based on Carrillo’s driving, Tindel believed Carrillo was intoxicated. Tindel then stopped the vehicle and, after observing Carrillo’s demeanor, he arrested him for driving under the influence of alcohol. Carrillo was not issued a citation for the offense of failure to drive within a single lane.
At the end of the hearing, the lower court granted the motion to suppress, and certified the above question as one of great public importance. We accept review and quash the county court’s order of suppression.
The question, as framed, assumes the fact that the method in which Carrillo drove the car led Trooper Tindel to believe he was driving while impaired — as Tindel testified at the hearing. In other words, the credibility of that testimony is not at issue, and it was accepted by the trial judge. Cf., Dooley v. State, 501 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Section 901.15(1), Florida Statutes (1985), authorizes an officer to arrest a person who commits a misdemeanor in his presence. Driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol is a misdemeanor per section 316.193, Florida Statutes (1985). Even in the absence of probable cause for such an arrest prior to the stop, an officer can stop a driver based upon a founded suspicion that he is driving while under the influence. Thereafter, investigation may establish probable cause for arrest. See § 901.151, Fla.Stat. (1985); see also Bailey v. State, 319 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975); Esteen v. State, 503 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
The certified question, therefore, posits an incongruous factual setting. If the driving of the vehicle led the officer to believe (i.e., to have a founded suspicion) that the driver was impaired, then there was a legal basis (i.e., legislative authority) to stop him, and after the stop probable cause was established to arrest him for having committed a misdemeanor offense in the officer’s presence.
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW ACCEPTED; ORDER OF SUPPRESSION QUASHED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (34 total)
-
State v. DeSHONG, 603 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…d DCA 1989); § 901.-151, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1990). Thereafter, the probable cause needed to arrest or to suspend a license for DUI may be based upon evidence obtained during the standard procedures following a valid traffic stop. See State v. Carrillo, 506 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Erratic driving similar to that involved in this case has been held sufficient to establish a founded suspicion and to validate a DUI stop. See, e.g., Carrillo (weaving within a traffic lane); Esteen v. State, 503 So. 2d 356 (F…
-
Roberts v. State, 732 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…necessary founded suspicion to support a stop. See Brown v. State, 595 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (finding that the absence of a traffic offense does not establish the absence of a valid objective basis for the stop); State v. Carillo[Carrillo], 506 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“an officer can stop a driver based upon a founded suspicion that he is driving while under the influence”); State, Dept. Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. DeShong, 603 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (driving behavior need no…1 / 2
-
Therion Frierson v. State, 511 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…all based merely on a simple finding that Frierson is “an habitual offender.” Departure may be available in this case, however, if requisite findings are made in conformity with Williams v. State, 504 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1987). See Brockington v. State, 506 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). REVERSED and REMANDED for re-sentencing. UPCHURCH, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur. . The rule provides: A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it.... . But see McCuiston v. State, 12 FLW 1357 (Fla. 2nd…
Previewing 3 of 34 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bailey v. State, 319 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)
- Esteen v. State, 503 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Dooley v. State, 501 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)