JOSEPH BENDER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Joseph Bender appeals his conviction for felony driving with a suspended license, challenging the legality of the traffic stop for an alleged illegal U-turn. The court affirms, holding that the officer had probable cause to stop Bender's vehicle based on objective evidence that the U-turn created a reasonable safety concern in a dangerous location.
The officer had probable cause to stop Bender's vehicle. Although the record contained no objective evidence that the U-turn violated the specific statutory provisions, the officer's testimony established probable cause based on the U-turn creating a reasonable safety concern under section 316.1515, given the dangerous location and circumstances.
[1] Probable cause for a traffic stop is determined by objective evidence of observed violations, not the officer's subjective belief.
[2] A traffic stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if probable cause existed for the stop.
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“generally the only determination to be made is whether probable cause existed for the stop in question.”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing the reasonableness of a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer observed Bender make a U-turn on Fairfield Drive, a narrow road with a nearby curve and convenience store. The officer testified that the loca…
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 Motion To Suppress cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Bender appeals his conviction and sentence for felony driving with a suspended license following the denial of his motion to suppress all evidence obtained from a traffic stop. Bender argues that, based upon the objective evidence in the record, the arresting officer lacked probable cause to make the traffic stop for an illegal U-turn under either section 316.15151 or section 316.152,2 Florida Statutes (1997). We do not agree and affirm.
As the Florida Supreme Court has explained, in considering whether a decision to make a traffic stop is “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment, “generally the only determination to be made is whether probable cause existed for the stop in question.” Holland v. State, 696 So. 2d 757, 759 (Fla.1997); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). In Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 659, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1399, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979), the Court noted that “[t]he foremost method of enforcing traffic and vehicle safety regulations ... is acting upon observed violations.” Whether an officer has probable cause to make a traffic stop is judged not by the officer’s subjective belief, but by an objective standard based on the observed violations. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Doctor v. State, 596 So. 2d 442, 447 (Fla.1992); see also State v. Hernandez, 718 So. 2d 833, 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(“[U]nder Whren, the test is whether an officer could have stopped the vehicle for a traffic infraction.”).
We agree with Bender that the record contains no objective evidence that his U-tnrn interfered with other traffic or was contrary to posted traffic control signs so as to constitute a violation of section 316.1515 or was made directly upon a curve in violation of section 316.152. See Crooks v. State, 710 So. 2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The testimony of the arresting officer, however, is sufficient to establish that probable cause existed for a stop on the grounds that the U-turn created a reasonable safety concern under section 316.1515. Using a hand-drawn and printed map to indicate the location of the U-turn vis-a-vis a curve in the road, the officer testified about his observations, in pertinent part as follows:
Q. [T]he reason for your stop was because of this illegal U-turn?
A. Yeah. That’s a dangerous area right here. Fairfield Drive is pretty narrow. There’s a curve right there and there’s a convenience store. That’s kind of a dangerous area right there for making a U-turn.
* *
Q. What is it about the turn that was illegal?
A. Well, this is a — this curve right here is very dangerous, No. 1. Okay. He went from one shoulder to the other shoulder. Okay. What he should have done was come up to the light and done something up in this area rather than in this area right here. This is a very dangerous area.
The officer added that he thought there was a double yellow line on the roadway where Bender made his turn “probably ... because of that curve.” The officer’s observations of the “dangerous” location at which Bender made the U-turn were based upon objective facts — -the “pretty narrow” road, the close proximity to a curve, and the manner of the turn itself — which together constituted reasonable grounds for the stop.
Because the objective evidence in the record was sufficient to establish probable cause for the instant traffic stop, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, MINER AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR. . Section 316.1515, Florida Statutes (1997) states as follows:
The driver of any vehicle shall not turn the vehicle so as to proceed in the opposite direction upon any street unless such movement can be made in safety and without interfering with other traffic and unless such movement is not prohibited by posted traffic control signs.
. Section 316.152, Florida Statutes (1997) states as follows:
No vehicle shall be turned so as to proceed in the opposite direction upon any curve, or upon the approach to, or near, the crest of a grade, where such vehicle cannot be seen by the driver of any other vehicle approaching from either direction within 500 feet.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beahan v. State, 41 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…nable in any event. Section 316.1515, Florida Statutes prohibits a driver from making a U-turn only if such a turn is prohibited by a posted traffic sign or if the turn cannot be made safely and without interfering with traffic. See Bender v. State, 737 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (concluding that the officer had probable cause to make an arrest for an illegal turn because the turn was made near a dangerous curve). As we have explained, there was no traffic in the area and the defendant appeared to be oper…
-
State v. Y.Q.R., 50 So. 3d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…er section 316.155 if the turn affects traffic. See State v. Riley, 638 So. 2d 507, 508 (Fla.1994). Second, under section 316.1515, a U-turn can amount to a traffic offense if it interferes with traffic or cannot be made safely. See Bender v. State, 737 So. 2d 1181, 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Third, where it impacts other traffic, a turn made from the wrong lane can constitute erratic driving so as to provide a basis for an investigatory stop. Cf. Nicholas v. State, 857 So. 2d 980, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Her…
-
Compare Bender v. State (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2010)…fic, or was prohibited by a posted traffic sign in violation of section 316.1515, Florida Statutes, or that the U-Turn was made upon a curve or approach to a dangerous grade in violation of section 316.152, Florida Statutes. Compare Bender v. State, 737 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (improper U-Turn; stop valid), and State v. Y.Q.R., 50 So. 3d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (improper left turn; stop valid), with Beahan v. State, 41 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (stop for U-Turn questionable). Nor was there record…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1979)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996)
- Holland v. State, 696 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1997)
- Terrtric Doctor v. State, 596 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1992)
- Garnet Crooks v. State, 710 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- State v. Hernandez, 718 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)