RUTH WEISS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Weiss sought certiorari review of a circuit court's reversal of a suppression order. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the petition because the circuit court applied the wrong standard of appellate review by reweighing evidence rather than determining whether competent substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding of no reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop.
The circuit court applied an incorrect standard of review by reweighing the evidence to determine whether the traffic stop was supported by substantial competent evidence, rather than determining whether competent substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding of no reasonable suspicion. The correct standard requires asking whether there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's ruling, not whether the stop itself was supported by competent substantial evidence.
[1] An appellate court departs from the essential requirements of law when it applies the wrong standard of appellate review by reweighing the evidence presented at a suppres…
[2] A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is presumed correct and is reversible only if the findings are not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is presumed correct, and that reversal is authorized only if the findings are not supported by competent substantial evidence”
Establishes the correct standard of appellate review for suppression decisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn officer observed Weiss weaving between lanes around 3:00 a.m. on University Drive in Sunrise, Florida. The officer stated the driving pattern indic…
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 Reweighing Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Weiss seeks a writ of certiorari to review a circuit court appellate decision. The circuit court reversed a county court order which granted Weiss’s motion to suppress. We grant the petition because the circuit court applied the wrong standard of appellate review by reweighing the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.
Weiss was observed by an officer, around 3:00 a.m., weaving from one lane to another, while traveling northbound on University Drive in Sunrise, Florida. The record does not show the crime with which Weiss was charged, but the officer stopped her because she was concerned that the driving pattern indicated the driver “could possibly be under the influence of — she could possibly be sick. You know, there were numerous other things that could be going on.”
Weiss moved to suppress on the ground that the officer had no reasonable suspicion to stop her, and the trial court granted the motion, stating that the officer did not specifically suspect DUI and noting that there was no one else on the road. The state then appealed to circuit court, which reversed, but applied the incorrect standard of review.
In its opinion, the circuit court recognized that the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is presumed correct, and that reversal is authorized only if the findings are not supported by competent substantial evidence, citing State v. Johns, 920 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). In reversing, however, the court stated that it was doing so because the traffic stop was supported by substantial competent evidence. The standard of review which should have been applied by the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity was whether there was competent substantial evidence to support the county court’s ruling, Sunby v. State, 845 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
In Sunby, just as in the present case, the officer stopped the defendant for weaving or failure to maintain a single lane. The county court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that the weaving was not sufficiently erratic to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of impairment. The circuit court reversed, and the fifth district granted certiorari because the circuit court misapplied the law in reweighing the evidence.
Weaving, or failure to maintain a single lane, may or may not establish reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop, and accordingly a trial court ruling on a motion to suppress may be subject to reversal on the ground that no competent substantial evidence supported the ruling. Sunby; Hurd v. State, 958 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); and Roberts v. State, 732 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
In this case it cannot be said that the finding of no reasonable suspicion was not supported by substantial competent evidence. When the circuit court found substantial competent evidence to support the stop, it applied the incorrect standard of review, and that is a departure from the essential requirements of law. Sarasota Cty. v. Kemper, 746 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Favino, 667 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We therefore grant the petition, vacate the opinion, and remand with directions to reinstate the order of suppression.
WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Nowak, 1 So. 3d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…nce and all reasonable inferences “must be interpreted in a manner most favorable to an affir-mance.” Id. If the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent, substantial evidence, this court must accept them. See, e.g., Weiss v. State, 965 So. 2d 842, 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). By contrast, we review questions of law involved in any suppression analysis de novo. Ernst, 809 So. 2d at 54. Nowak’s Statements to Police The order on review was entered following a lengthy evidentiary hearing at which…
-
Laurence Alvin Duke v. State, 82 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…urt clearly credited the officer’s testimony that he initiated the stop based on Duke’s suspected impairment. In doing so, the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law. See Sunby, 845 So. 2d at 1007; see also Weiss v. State, 965 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (relying on Sunby to find that circuit court departed from essential requirements of the law when it applied incorrect standard of review). We therefore grant the petition for writ of certiorari, vacate the circuit court’s…
-
Bainter v. State, 135 So. 3d 517 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…ence and all reasonable inferences “must be interpreted in a manner most favorable to an affirmance.” Id. If the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent, substantial evidence, this court must accept them. See, e.g., Weiss v. State, 965 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). By contrast, we review questions of law involved in any suppression analysis de novo. Ernst, 809 So. 2d at 54. State v. Nowak, 1 So. 3d 215, 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). The undisputed facts are that the property where the se…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Favino, 667 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Hurd v. State, 958 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Roberts v. State, 732 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- State v. Johns, 920 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Sunby v. State, 845 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Sarasota Cnty. v. Kemper, 746 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)