ANGEL CARABALLO, 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.
Angel Caraballo was convicted of cocaine and drug paraphernalia possession following a search incident to arrest. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that officers lawfully arrested Caraballo for possessing a suspended driver's license after stopping him for riding a bicycle without proper lights, and therefore the search was valid.
The search was lawful because the officers made a valid arrest for possessing a suspended license, which was a separate crime from the traffic violation that justified the initial stop. The trial court's factual finding that Caraballo committed this misdemeanor was not an abuse of discretion.
[1] A traffic stop for a violation of bicycle lighting laws is constitutionally permissible.
[2] Possession of a suspended driver's license, with knowledge of its suspension, constitutes a misdemeanor offense.
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“Appellant correctly recognizes that the officers did not violate his constitutional rights in stopping him because of the traffic violation. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996).”
Establishes that the initial traffic stop was lawful under the Fourth Amendment regardless of the officers' true motivation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo officers observed Caraballo, riding a bicycle without headlight or taillight in a high drug area, engage in a suspicious exchange with two young m…
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 Traffic Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
[*696] KLEIN, J.
Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia and argues that the trial should have granted his motion to suppress. We affirm.
Two officers observed appellant, who was on a bicycle, enter into an exchange with two young men in a high drug area. It was dark at the time, and they could not see sufficiently to determine precisely what was occurring. When appellant rode away on his bicycle, which did not have a headlight or taillight, the office stopped him because the lack of lights was a traffic violation. § 316.2065, Fla. Stat. (1997).
When the officers asked appellant for his driver’s license or identification, appellant told them his license was suspended and handed it to them. Displaying or possessing a suspended driver’s license, with knowledge that it has been suspended, is a second degree misdemeanor. § 322.32(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). The officers verified that the license was suspended, took appellant into custody, and made a search incident to arrest which produced contraband.
Appellant’s argument appears to be that he was in fact only cited, or should have only been cited, and therefore he could not have been searched incident to an arrest. The probable cause affidavit does indicate that a citation was issued. The officers testified, however, that they decided to arrest appellant because of the suspended license, rather than issue him a citation.
Appellant correctly recognizes that the officers did not violate his constitutional rights in stopping him because of the traffic violation. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). His reliance on Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 119 S.Ct. 484, 142 L.Ed.2d 492 (1998), however, is misplaced, because in Knowles the officers only issued a citation for the traffic violation rather than arresting the defendant. In Knowles the Supreme Court held that the fourth amendment does not authorize a full automobile search under those circumstances.
The present case is very similar to State v. Wilson, 725 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), in which the officers attempted to stop the defendant for operating a bicycle without lights after dark, but he ran. When the officers caught up with him, they arrested him for obstructing them in the performance of their legal duty, see section 843.02, Florida Statutes (1997), and the second district upheld a search in connection with the arrest.
In the present case the trial court factually found that, after a lawful stop, appellant committed an entirely separate misdemeanor, possession of a suspended license, for which he was lawfully arrested. We find no abuse of discretion. McNamara v. State, 357 So. 2d 410 (Fla.1978).
Affirmed.
WARNER, C.J., and GUNTHER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. McDONALD, 826 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…o arrest at the time of the stop. With the existence of probable cause established, the subsequent search of the truck was justified as incident to the defendant’s arrest. See State v. Lingo, 796 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Caraballo v. State, 753 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The motion to suppress should have been denied. We reverse and remand. STONE, J. and JACOBUS, BRUCE, Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996)
- McNAMARA v. State, 357 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1978)
- Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1998)
- Mosley v. United States, 525 U.S. 120 (U.S. 1998)
- State v. Shantavious Augusta Wilson, 725 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)