WILLIAM PADOVANI
v.
STATE
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.
William Padovani appealed an order denying his motion to suppress evidence from a vehicle stop. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that police had reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle based on a dispatch call reporting erratic driving and corroborating observations.
The stop was lawful. Officer Coello had reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop based on the totality of circumstances, including the day and time, the detailed nature of the dispatch call, the corroborating observations of the officer, and the actions of the following driver.
[1] A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is presumed correct and the reviewing court must interpret the evidence and all reasonable inferences and deductions drawn…
[2] A legitimate concern for the safety of the motoring public can warrant a brief investigatory stop to determine if a driver is ill, tired, or driving while impaired.
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 trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is presumed correct and the reviewing court must interpret the evidence and all reasonable inferences and deductions drawn therefrom in a manner most favorable to the trial court's ruling.”
Establishes the appellate standard of review for suppression motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 28, 2012 at 10:00 p.m., Officer Coello received a dispatch call about a possible reckless or drunk driver whose vehicle was swerving in and …
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 Presumption Of Correctness On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Before POWELL, ARNOLD, and LAUTEN, J.J.
PER CURIAM.
FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING TRIAL COURT
Appellant William Padovani seeks review of an order denying his pretrial motion to suppress.1 His sole argument is that the stop of his vehicle was not made on reasonable suspicion and was therefore unlawful. We disagree, and affirm. We dispense with oral argument pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.320.
At 10:00 p.m. on August 28, 2012, a Saturday night, Officer Coello received a call from his radio dispatch concerning a possible reckless or drunk driver. The unidentified caller reported the vehicle was in and out of its lane, could not maintain the lane, drove off the road several times, and that it stopped at a green light with a lot of people honking for him to move on. Officer Coello, who was approximately a mile and a half away, responded to the location described by the caller within two minutes. There he observed Appellant’s vehicle which matched the make, color and tag number given by the caller. He also saw another vehicle following immediately behind Appellant’s vehicle with its driver flagging, waiving and pointing to it. He then got behind Appellant’s vehicle and before stopping it, saw it swerve to the right two times “in a manner that was a little awkward” even though the road was straight. Officer Coello further testified he initiated the stop “mainly because of that complaint – that call, reckless driver” and that he “wanted to make sure the driver wasn’t impaired, asleep or tired, if something was going on in the vehicle...”.2
A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is presumed correct and the reviewing court must interpret the evidence and all reasonable inferences and deductions drawn therefrom in a manner most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Johnson v. State, 438 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1983), cert denied 465 U.S.1051 (1984). Each case is evaluated on its own particular facts. Brown v. State, 719 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Considering the totality of the circumstances: the day of the week, the lateness of the hour, the extensive detail in the tip, the actions of the following driver3, and the corroborating observations and concerns of the officer; we conclude
DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida this 12th day of December, 2012.
/S/_________________________
ROM W. POWELL Senior Judge
/S/
/S/__________________________ C. JEFFERY ARNOLD FREDERICK J. LAUTEN Circuit Judge Circuit Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing order was furnished to Kimberly M. DeVries, Assistant Public Defender, 435 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 400, Orlando, Florida 32801; Dugald McMillan, Assistant State Attorney, 415 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 200, Orlando, Florida 32802-1673; and Honorable Faye Allen, 425 N. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801, this 12th day of December, 2012.
/S/_________________________________
Judicial Assistant
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 438 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1983)
- State v. DeSHONG, 603 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Mamodou Ndow v. State, 864 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Brown v. State, 719 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)