LUIS A. PEREZ-GARCIA, 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 should not have quashed the district court's decision regarding an inoperable taillight.
The case concerns an inoperable taillight, which the district court found to be an unsafe condition.…
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 Florida Supreme Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review State v. Perez-Garcia, 917 So. 2d 894 (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 Perez-Garcia, 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 Perez-Garcia). When our decision in Hilton became final, we issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why Hilton is not controlling in this case, and thus why the Court should not decline to accept jurisdiction. Upon considering petitioner’s response and respondent’s reply thereto, we have determined to grant the petition for review in the present case, quash, and remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Hilton.
Accordingly, we 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.
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 from the majority’s summary quashing of the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in this case.
First, this case is distinguishable from Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla.2007). Hilton involved a cracked windshield on the nondriver’s side of a vehicle. Here, the case concerns an inoperable taillight.
Second, clearly the district court expressly adhered to the objective test for vehicle stops in accord with Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996), and Dobrin v. Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 874 So. 2d 1171, 1174 (Fla.2004).
In this case, the district court logically concluded as a matter of law in its straightforward holding, that an inoperable left rear taillight is an objectively “unsafe condition,” prohibited by section 316.610, Florida Statutes (2003). This legal conclusion is not in conflict with Hilton, Dobrin, or any other case decided by this Court or any other district court.
BELL, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Perez-Garcia, 987 So. 2d 814 (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 Perez-Garcia v. State, 983 So. 2d 578 (Fla.2008), quashing 917 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). As in State v. Howard, 983 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), and D.E.M. v. State, 985 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), we think it appropriate also to remand the case to the trial court for furthe…
-
Green v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…felt that the vehicle was unsafe, the officer responded: "Well, it was missing the sideview mirror on the driver's side. If you need to turn lanes, you need to use your mirror." Id. Moreover, the supreme court's decision in Perez-Garcia v. State, 983 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2008), quashed a decision of the Third District which concluded that, as a matter of law, an inoperable rear tail light is an objectively unsafe condition. Id. at 578-79 (quashing State v. Perez-Garcia, 917 So. 2d 894, 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005),…
Authorities Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996)
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Tristan Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2007)
- Dobrin v. Fla. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 874 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2004)
- Tristan Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- State v. Perez-Garcia, 917 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)