STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
LAZARO BARRIO, RAUL SANCHEZ, AND ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reasonable Suspicion For Traffic Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us from an order granting a motion to suppress physical evidence. The trial court found, and appellees argue on appeal, that the stop for driving at a speed eight miles per hour over the posted limit was pretextual because Officer Lee had a drug dog with him; the officer had only issued a few tickets in previous months; and the officer conceded that his purpose in being on 1-75 at 10:00 p.m. with a drug-sniffing dog in his car was to locate drugs. We reverse.
Appellees’ vehicle was “clocked” at 73 miles per hour in a 65 mile-per-hour zone. They do not dispute that fact. In Springle v. State, 613 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA1993) (en banc), the court stated that a stop for speeding 73 miles per hour in a 65 mile-per-hour zone was not pretextual, holding that “[i]f the speed limit is 65 m.p.h., then a stop is lawful at any speed in excess of that figure.” Thus, the stop for speeding was not rendered invalid because the officer was also seeking to apprehend drug carriers. Springle, supra.
Accordingly, the order granting the motion to suppress is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
BOOTH and MINER, JJ., and SHIVERS, DOUGLASS B., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Holland, 680 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…unlike the present case, both Hills and Monroe involved narcotics officers following a specific suspect vehicle, just “waiting for an opportunity to make a stop” based on a traffic infraction. Monroe, 543 So. 2d at 299. . See also State v. Barrio, 619 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (reversing order granting defendant’s suppression motion, holding that stop of vehicle travelling eight miles per hour over the speed limit was not pretextual, even where officer had drug dog, only issued a few tickets in previou…
-
State v. Velez, 649 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…on — who in this case was [*311] a narcotics investigator — might or evep, as the trial court held, would have detained the occupants if no infraction had taken place at all.3 See State v. Pollard, 625 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); State v. Barrio, 619 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Springle v. State, 613 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), review dismissed, 626 So. 2d 208 (Fla.1993); State v. Taylor, 557 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Moreland v. State, 552 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), review denied 562 So. 2…
Authorities Cited
- Springle v. State, 613 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Anson Inc. v. Janet E. Deutsch f/n/a Janet E. Boyd, 613 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)