STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
TILLMAN
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 a trial court's order granting Tillman's motion to suppress evidence from a DUI investigation. The appellate court reverses, holding that the officer's initial investigative stop of a car illegally parked at night with an intoxicated driver inside was supported by reasonable suspicion and justified under the totality of circumstances.
The appellate court reversed the suppression order, holding that the totality of circumstances—including illegal parking, late evening hour, difficulty arousing the driver, odor of alcohol, sluggish speech, and the officer's concern for the driver's welfare—provided reasonable suspicion justifying the investigative stop.
[1] An appellate court must independently determine de novo whether the trial court applied the correct law to the facts.
[2] An appellate court must review the totality of the facts in a case, considering prior cases with similar facts.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Once the facts have been determined, an appellate court must then consider whether the trial court applied the correct law to the facts in reaching its conclusion. This is a question of law, to be independently determined de novo.”
Establishes the standard of review for suppression rulings as de novo review of legal conclusions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputy Sheriff Lott observed a car illegally parked half on the sidewalk with its engine running and lights off at 11:16 p.m. When Deputy Lott shined …
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 Investigatory Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
Before POWELL, KOMANSKI, and GRINCEWICZ, J.J.
PER CURIAM.
FINAL ORDER REVERSING TRIAL COURT
Appellant State of Florida appeals an order granting appellee Tillman’s pretrial motion to suppress. We dispense with oral argument pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 9.320, and reverse. 2 of 4 Neither the written order nor the transcript of the suppression hearing contained any findings of fact.1
Deputy Sheriff Lott testified that he was on routine patrol in uniform in a marked patrol car on Thursday, December 23, 2011 at 11:16 p.m. He observed a car illegally parked half on the sidewalk and half on the paved space in front of the business. The engine was running and the lights were off. Appellee was behind the wheel with the seat slightly reclined, his head leaning back, his eyes closed. In order to check on his welfare, the deputy pulled in behind Appellee’s car, and tried to arouse him by shining his spotlight through Appellee’s back window. Finally, after Deputy Lott shined his flashlight through the half opened driver’s window and began speaking to him, Appellee became aroused and appeared slightly disoriented. His speech was sluggish and the deputy Lott noticed an odor of alcohol coming from Appellee or the car. Deputy Lott then asked Appellee to get out of his car which he did.
Deputy Denardo arrived as a backup officer. He testified that when he made contact Appellee was unsteady on his feet, and had a sway when he walked. His speech was very slow and slurred. His eyes were watery and bloodshot. He said he had a half a beer earlier. He performed poorly on the field sobriety exercises. Deputy Denardo then placed Appellee under arrest for DUI.
1In the case at bar, before Tillman got out of his car, the officer observed the following:1) it was late evening; 2) defendant’s car was illegally parked in a bizarre manner; 3) Tillman was slow in arousing; 4) there was an odor of alcohol emanating from the car or his person; 5) his speech was sluggish; and 6) the officer testified he was concerned about the driver’s well-being. The trial judge made not a single comment on the record which would indicate a weighing of the evidence or a credibility determination. 3 of 4 Once the facts have been determined, an appellate court must then consider whether the trial court applied the correct law to the facts in reaching its conclusion. This is a question of law, to be independently determined de novo. Tyson v. State, 922 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); State v. Ramos, 755 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Each case must be decided on the totality of its own particular facts, with regard however to the outcomes of prior cases involving similar facts. U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).
Florida appellate and trial courts have decided a series of cases dealing with investigative stops of parked cars having similar facts which we find controlling. See Dermio v. State, 112 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); State v. Jimoh, 67 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), rev. den. 64 So. 3d 117 (Fla. 2011); Vitale v. State, 946 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); State v. Roosa, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1007a (Fla. 6th Cir. Ct. June 15, 2007); State v. Wenners, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 722a (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. May 16, 2005); Keyser v. State, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 10a (Fla. 15th Cir.Ct. Oct. 28, 2003); Zuniga v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 524a (Fla. 13th Cir. Ct. May 20, 2002); Gardner v. State, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 350b (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. April 3, 2001); State v. Logan, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 166a (Fla. 18th Cir. Ct. Jan. 25, 2001); Sweetman v. State, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 865a (Fla. 15th Cir.Ct. May 31, 1996); State v. Gentile, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 244a (Fla. Brevard Cty. Ct. Nov. 18, 2010); State v. McHugh, 7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 283a (Fla. Palm Beach Cty. Ct. 2000).
Appellee Tillman relies on Danielewicz v. State, 730 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) in his brief here as he did at the suppression hearing. We assume that the trial court did likewise. But that case is factually distinguishable. There, the defendant was legally parked in the parking lot of a restaurant. The officer did not notice an odor of alcohol until after the defendant had exited the car. The officer did not testify that he was concerned for the defendant’s well-being. 4 of 4 Based upon the foregoing, we reverse the trial court’s order granting Tillman’s motion to suppress and remand this case for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED. DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida this 26th day of July, 2013.
/S/
ROM W. POWELL Senior Judge
/S/
/S/
WALTER KOMANSKI DONALD E. GRINCEWICZ Circuit Judge Circuit Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing order was furnished to Karla M. Reyes, 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 Carolyn B. Freeman, 425 N. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801, by mail, this 26th day of July, 2013.
/S/
Judicial Assistant
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002)
- Dermio v. State, 112 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Danielewicz v. State, 730 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- State v. Ramos, 755 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Vitale v. State, 946 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- State v. Rafiat Mojisola Jimoh, 67 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Tyson v. State, 922 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)