STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM PATRICK BALLINGER, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Florida appellate court reversed suppression of breath test refusal but affirmed denial of suppression of evidence from the traffic stop, holding that reasonable suspicion—not probable cause—justified the stop.
An officer may conduct a traffic stop based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity rather than probable cause, and the suppression of a breath test refusal was improper.
[1] A traffic stop requires only reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under § 901.151, Fla. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam Patrick Ballinger was stopped by a police officer and refused to take a breath test. The trial court granted suppression of the refusal and al…
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 Unlawful Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
The State appeals a trial court order granting suppression of William Patrick Ballinger’s refusal to take a breath test, and Ballinger cross-appeals the same trial court order which also denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from an allegedly unlawful stop. For the reasons stated in State v. Busciglio, 976 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), we reverse the trial court’s order granting suppression of Ballinger’s refusal. However, we affirm the court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the stop because the officer was not required to have probable cause to arrest Ballinger in order to stop his vehicle. Rather, the officer was merely required to have reasonable suspicion that Ballinger had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. See § 901.151, Fla. Stat. (2004); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185, 186 (Fla.1993). We conclude that the trial court correctly found that the officer had the requisite reasonable suspicion sufficient to stop Ballinger’s vehicle. Thus, we affirm that portion of the order denying suppression.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for further proceedings.
DAVIS, J., and BENNETT, ROBERT B., JR., Associate Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968)
- Tedd J. Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Busciglio, 976 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)