ALEXANDER ALPHONSO, 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.
Alphonso, a probationer, challenged his sentence for violation of probation by arguing the trial court should have suppressed evidence from a traffic stop because the officer lacked authority to stop him. The court affirmed, holding that the officer lawfully stopped Alphonso for failing to obey a traffic control roadblock.
The court held that the officer had lawful authority to stop Alphonso because under Florida law it is unlawful for any person to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order or direction of a law enforcement officer, and Alphonso's failure to obey the roadblock provided legal grounds for the stop.
[1] A person commits an offense by willfully failing or refusing to comply with a lawful order or direction of a law enforcement officer.
[2] A trial court's factual findings regarding the evidence supporting a traffic stop are presumed correct on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[i]t is unlawful ... for any person willfully to fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any law enforcement officer.”
Establishes the statutory basis for the officer's authority to stop Alphonso for failing to obey the roadblock
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlphonso was on probation following a youthful offender sentence for felonies. An officer established a roadblock to assist another motorist. When Alp…
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 Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
Appellant challenges his sentence imposed upon a violation of probation, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained after an officer initiated a traffic stop. He claims that the stop was unauthorized. We disagree and affirm.
Appellant, Alexander Alphonso, was on probation after serving a youthful offender sentence imposed for the commission of several felonies. The state filed an affida vit of violation alleging sixteen different violations. The focus of this appeal concerns whether the trial court should have suppressed evidence concerning the commission of new crimes which stemmed from his stop and arrest on January 2, 2006. Those crimes included, inter alia, possession of marijuana and driving without a valid driver’s license. He concedes that he violated probation independent of the new crimes for which he was arrested, but maintains that the new crimes should not have been considered as part of the violation because the arresting officer had no probable cause to stop him. Alphonso contends that consideration of the new “substantive” crimes prevented the court from resentencing him as a youthful offender which resulted in a much greater sentence than he would have otherwise received.
An officer stopped Alphonso after he failed to obey a roadblock that the officer had instituted to assist another motorist. When Alphonso drove around the roadblock, the officer attempted to stop him, but Alphonso refused to stop even after the officer initiated his lights, honked his horn, and ordered him to stop over the P.A. system. Alphonso ultimately drove several blocks and made a couple of turns before stopping.
Alphonso argues that the officer had no authority to stop him. We disagree, as under Florida law, “[i]t is unlawful ... for any person willfully to fail or refuse to comply with any lawful order or direction of any law enforcement officer....” § 316.072(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). The officer had set the roadblock and directed traffic to stop, which Alphonso failed to do. Although he contends that the evidence was not clear that he disobeyed a roadblock, the issue is one of fact for the trial court, which we afford the presumption of correctness. See Rivera v. State, 859 So. 2d 495, 509 (Fla.2003). In this case, we conclude that the trial court’s view of the evidence is fully supported by the record. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress.
Affirmed.
SHAHOOD, C.J., and STEVENSON, J., concur.