IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
STATE OF
Appellant,
v. Appeal No. CRC 04-0004 APANO
UCN522004AP000004XXXXCR
MATTHEW R. JORGENSEN
Appellee.
______________________________/
Opinion filed __________________.
Appeal from a decision of the
Acting County Judge Robert Beach
Greg Groger, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney
Laura Gapske, Esq.
Assistant Public Defender
(Demers, J.)
THIS
MATTER is before the Court on the State’s appeal from a decision of the
A member of law enforcement saw that the vehicle in which the defendant was driving had a cracked windshield. The vehicle was stopped. During the investigation as to who actually owned the vehicle, the defendant was asked for his identification, which the officer reviewed and found invalid. When informed by the officer that displaying an invalid driver’s license was a misdemeanor, the defendant fled the scene. He was later arrested and charged with resisting arrest without violence, possession of a suspended driver’s license, and driving an unsafe vehicle. In the court below, the defendant made several motions seeking suppression of the evidence and dismissal of the charges. The trial court granted the motion to suppress and the motion to dismiss the suspended driver’s license charge. It is unclear if the trial court based its decision to grant the motion to dismiss on its belief that the stop was improper, or for one of the other reasons raised by the defendant. It does, however, appear that the trial court based its decision to dismiss the charges on its belief that the stop was improper. The trial court certainly granted the motion to suppress because it believed the stop was improper.
The trial court’s reasoning seems to be that the crack in the windshield did not pose a safety hazard, and therefore there was no legal justification for the stop. The recent decision in the case of Hilton v. State, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D453 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 16, 2005), however, holds that law enforcement has the authority to stop a motor vehicle if there is a crack in the windshield even if that crack does not pose a safety hazard. This decision, decided after the trial court’s decision, is binding on this Court. Therefore, the trial court’s decision must be reversed because the stop was proper.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress and dismissing the case is reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for action consistent with this Order and Opinion. Upon remand, the defendant may raise any defense it may have to the charges that does not involve the propriety of the stop.
DONE
AND ORDERED in Chambers at
______________________
David A. Demers
Circuit Judge
_______________________
Robert J. Morris, Jr.
Circuit Judge
________________________
Irene S. Sullivan
Circuit Judge
cc: State Attorney
Public Defender