DAMIAN EUGENE LESLIE, 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.
Damian Leslie appeals his convictions for drug possession, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress contraband seized during a traffic stop. The appellate court reverses, holding that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop because the officer made a mistake of law regarding Florida's rearview mirror requirement.
The court reversed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding that an officer's mistake of law as to what constitutes a traffic violation cannot provide reasonable suspicion justifying a traffic stop. Florida law requires only that a vehicle have a mirror reflecting the highway 200 feet to the rear, not necessarily a center rearview mirror, so the officer's belief to the contrary was a mistake of law.
[1] A traffic stop based on an officer's mistaken belief about the law does not establish reasonable suspicion.
[2] A vehicle is not in violation of Florida Statute § 316.294 if side mirrors provide the required view to the rear, even if a center rearview mirror is absent.
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“An officer's mistake of law as to what constitutes a traffic violation cannot provide reasonable suspicion justifying a traffic stop.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that mistakes of law cannot justify traffic stops, cited to Hilton v. State and State v. Wimberly
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice stopped Leslie's vehicle based on the officer's observation that it lacked a center rearview mirror, which the officer believed was a traffic v…
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 Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
Damian Eugene Leslie (defendant) appeals his judgment and sentences, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress contraband seized during a traffic stop. Determining that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the stop, we reverse.
The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of 20 grams or less of marijuana.1 He filed a motion to suppress the contraband based on the claim that its discovery resulted from an unlawful seizure. Specifically, he argued that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop of his vehicle. At the suppression hearing, a law enforcement officer testified that he saw the defendant’s vehicle driving toward him, and he noticed that the vehicle did not have a center rearview mirror. The officer believed that this absence of a mirror was a traffic violation and, therefore, waved down the vehicle. The defendant stopped the vehicle. When the officer went to talk to the defendant, he saw three baggies of marijuana on the defendant’s lap. This discovery ultimately led to the instant charges. The court denied the suppres*723sion motion. The defendant then pled nob contendere after reserving the right to appeal the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the traffic stop was based on a mistake of law. We agree.
An officer’s mistake of law as to what constitutes a traffic violation cannot provide reasonable suspicion justifying a traffic stop. Hilton v. State, 961 So.2d 284, 298 (Fla.2007); State v. Wimberly, 988 So.2d 116, 119 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Florida law requires a vehicle to have “a mirror so located as to reflect to the driver a view of the highway for a distance of at least 200 feet to the rear of the motor vehicle.” § 316.294, Fla. Stat. (2011). This statute does not require a center rearview mirror if one or more side mirrors meet its requirement, so here, the officer’s belief to the contrary was a mistake of law. See U.S. v. Chanthasouxat, 342 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir.2003) (holding same regarding traffic stop for lack of rearview mirror based on substantially identical Alabama statute).2
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PALMER, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tristan Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2007)
- United States v. Chittakone Chanthasouxat, 342 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2003)
- State v. Javonte L. Wimberly, 988 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)