D.E.M., ETC., 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.
The court granted review, quashed the decision below, and remanded for reconsideration in light of a prior ruling by the Florida Supreme Court.
The Third District Court of Appeal relied on a Second District decision that was later quashed by the Florida Supreme Court. This Court stayed proceed…
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 Justification cases and more on FLexlaw
[*955] PER CURIAM.
We have for review D.E.M. v. State, 916 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), in which the Third District Court of Appeal expressly-relied upon the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision in Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (en banc), quashed, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla.2007). At the time the Third District issued its decision in D.E.M., Hilton was pending review in this Court. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1981).
We stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Hilton. See Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla.2007) (quashing the Second District’s decision in Hilton, upon which the Third District had relied in D.E.M.). When our decision in Hilton became final, we issued an order directing respondent to show cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, quash the D.E.M. decision, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Hilton. Upon considering respondent’s response and petitioner’s reply thereto, we have determined to do so.
We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case. The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the Third District for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Hilton. Nothing in our disposition today precludes any party from presenting any matter to the district court of appeal, including any assertions presented to this Court in the responses to the order to show cause.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, and CANTERO, JJ., concur. WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion, in which BELL, J, concurs.
WELLS, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent to the quashing of the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in this case. In the State’s response to this Court’s order to show cause following the Court’s decision in Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla.2007), the State submitted:
In this case, the State presented the testimony of the officer who stopped the vehicle. The officer testified the car Petitioner was riding in was stopped for having a shattered, driver’s side window which still had loose shards of glass and which were capable of being blown about by the wind as the vehicle picked up speed. The shattered glass rendered the vehicle unsafe to the motoring public as well as the driver where the shards of glass were loose and capable of flying within the vehicle as well as striking other motorists.
Respondent’s Response to Order to Show Cause at 2. In view of the majority opinion in Hilton, I believe that this Court must take this case because of the uncertainty that opinion leaves as to how dangerous defects in a motor vehicle must be for a traffic enforcement officer to stop the vehicle. Surely an “objectively reasonable” law enforcement officer should stop a vehicle with the glass damage here described for the safety of all of us who use our streets and highways.
BELL, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.E.M. v. State, 985 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. This case is on remand from the Florida Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla.2007). See D.E.M. v. State, 979 So. 2d 954 (Fla.2008), quashing 916 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). As in State v. Howard, 983 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), we think it appropriate also to remand the case to the trial court for further consideration consistent with Hilton, 961 So. 2d at 284.…
-
Paul v. State, 991 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (en banc) (Hilton I). The supreme court reversed Hilton I, quashed our decision in Paul, and remanded for our reconsideration. Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla.2007) (Hilton II); Paul v. State, 979 So. 2d 954 (Fla.2008). On remand, we affirm. Facts A police officer stopped Mr. Paul’s pickup truck because the left taillamp casing was broken. Mr. Paul told the officer that he did not have a driver’s license but provided his name, social security number,…
Authorities Cited
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Tristan Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2007)
- Tristan Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Osmel Alvarez v. State, 916 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- D.E.M. v. State, 916 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)