State
v. Crilley, No. 02-88 (
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
APPELLATE DIVISION
STATE
OF
Appellant
vs.
CRC01-19098CFANO
JEPHREY
JOSEPH CRILLEY,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Appeal
from Order granting Motion to Suppress
County
Judge William Overton
Heather
B. Quick, Esq.
Assistant
State Attorney
Attorney
for Appellant
Timothy
W. Weber, Esq.
Attorney
for Appellee
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the State’s appeal from the trial court’s Order granting the defendant’s Motion to Suppress. After reviewing the briefs and record, this court affirms the trial court’s decision.
On March 4, 2001 at approximately 9:30 p.m. Officer Jonette Demange with the Treasure Island Police Department stopped the defendant for failure to maintain a single lane in violation of Fla. Stat §316.089. After stopping the defendant, Officer Demange initiated an investigation that ultimately resulted in the defendant’s arrest for DUI.
At the hearing on the Motion to Suppress,
the officer testified that prior to the stop she was driving directly behind
the defendant at the 112 block on
On granting defendant’s Motion to Suppress,
the trial court found “that Officer Jeanette Demange,
with the Treasure Island Police Department, conducted a traffic stop on the
Defendant’s vehicle, the sole basis of which was failure to maintain a single
lane under Section 316.089, Florida Statutes (2001); that the Defendant’s
driving did not affect any other traffic on the roadway or create a reasonable
safety concern warranting an investigatory stop; and thus the Court relied
on the cases of State v. Gianchinta, 5 Fla.
L. Weekly Supp 661 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir.,
“Appellate review of a motion to suppress
involves questions of both law and fact and an appellate court must make a
de novo review of the trial court’s application of the law to the facts.”
Rosenquist v. State, 769 So.2d
1051 (
This Court agrees with the trial court. As in the case law cited by the trial court, although the defendant’s vehicle may well have been weaving over the short distance, no other traffic was impeded or endangered, nor were any pedestrians endangered. The arresting officer testified that the only basis for her stop was that the defendant failed to maintain a single lane although the defendant’s driving was not affecting the other traffic. Based on those facts, there was no violation of Fla. Stat. §316.089 which would have given the officer probable cause for the stop. It is therefore,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the trial court’s Order granting the defendant’s Motion to Suppress is affirmed.
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers
at
___________________________________
NANCY
MOATE LEY
Circuit
Judge
Primary
Appellate Judge
____________________________________
W.
DOUGLAS BAIRD
Circuit
Judge
____________________________________
TIMOTHY
R. PETERS
Circuit Judge