STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD EVERETT, 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 appealed the trial court's grant of Everett's motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop. The appellate court reversed, finding the stop was not pretextual because the officer observed a legitimate traffic violation (failure to signal a right turn), which gave the officer legal authority to initiate the stop regardless of any ulterior motive.
The court reversed the suppression order, holding that the stop was not pretextual because the state met its burden of showing that a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle based on the observed violation of section 316.155 (failure to signal), which was a legitimate traffic violation. Once a traffic stop is legally authorized, any remaining doubt whether the stop was pretextual should be resolved in favor of the state.
[1] A traffic stop is not pretextual if a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle absent an additional invalid purpose.
[2] Once the state establishes that a traffic stop was legally authorized, any legitimate doubt as to whether the stop was pretextual should be resolved in favor of the state…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In order to demonstrate a traffic stop is not pretextual, the state must show that under the facts and the circumstances a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle absent an additional invalid purpose.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether a traffic stop is pretextual under Kehoe v. State.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer observed Everett's vehicle abruptly turn right without signaling and initiated a traffic stop. When asked for his license, Everett pr…
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 Reasonable Officer Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
The state seeks reversal of an order of the trial court granting Harold Everett’s motion to suppress evidence obtained after a traffic stop. We reverse because the stop was not pretextual; a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle absent an additional invalid purpose.
A police officer observed Everett’s vehicle abruptly turn right without signalling. The officer was travelling behind Everett’s vehicle, and he stopped Everett based on his observations. When the officer asked Everett for his license, he provided the officer with his name because he did not have his license with him. The officer ran a check and discovered an active warrant for Everett’s arrest. He also discovered Everett’s license had been suspended for ten years. Everett was placed under arrest. Marijuana was found on him during a pat-down search incident to the arrest. The officer later discovered the vehicle Everett was driving had been reported stolen sometime after the traffic stop. Everett was charged with grand theft, driving while license suspended, and possession of cannabis. No citation was issued for the traffic violation.
Everett filed a motion to suppress evidence alleging the stop was pretextual. After a hearing, the court granted the motion finding the stop was pretextual pursuant to Kehoe v. State, 521 So. 2d 1094 (Fla.1988).
In order to demonstrate a traffic stop is not pretextual, the state must show that under the facts and the circumstances a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle absent an additional invalid purpose. Kehoe. Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court recently opined that once the state establishes that a traffic stop was legally authorized, then any legitimate doubt whether the state has met its burden that the stop was not pretextual should be resolved in favor of the state. State v. Daniel, 665 So. 2d 1040 (Fla.1995). In this instance, the state presented unrefuted testimony indicating Everett made a right hand turn without signalling. Everett’s action was a violation of section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1993). Consistent with Daniel, Everett’s action gave the officer the right to initiate a traffic stop.
After the valid stop, the officer’s check of the Everett’s identity was permissible. State v. Pollard, 625 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The check led to the discovery that there was an active warrant for Everett’s arrest. Everett was arrested based on this information. The subsequent search was incident to a lawful arrest, and the evidence seized should not have been suppressed. The subsequent discovery that Everett’s vehicle was stolen is also admissible.
We find the state met its burden by showing the stop was authorized because Everett violated section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1993). Therefore, the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress. The order granting the motion is reversed, and this cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Kinsey Lee MAE, 706 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…case. Although the State could have reliéd on this weak evidence to argue that the stop was a valid traffic stop for violation of section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1995), it chose not to make that argument in the trial court. See State v. Everett, 671 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (traffic stop of defendant was legally authorized and not pretextual where officer observed defendant make a right-hand turn without signaling in violation of section 316.155); cf. State v. Riley, 638 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1994) (if no…
-
State v. Holland, 680 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…2d DCA 1989)(reversing order granting defendant’s motion to suppress cocaine, finding under Kehoe that “the cocaine was found as part of a legitimate traffic stop” for running a stop sign).3 As recently held in a similar context in State v. Everett, 671 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996): [T]he Florida Supreme Court recently opined that once the state establishes that a traffic stop was legally authorized, then [*1043] any legitimate doubt whether the state has met its burden that the stop was not pre-textual sho…
Authorities Cited
- Kehoe v. State, 521 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. Daniel, 665 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Deen, 625 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)