County Criminal Court: CRIMINAL LAW Ė Search and Seizure Ė Stop Ė Defendantís act of repeatedly weaving both within and without of his lane was sufficient to establish a pattern of erratic driving justifying a stop. Judgment and sentence affirmed. Prewitt v. State, No. CRC 04-41 APANO, (Fla. 6th Cir.App.Ct. June 30, 2005).

 

 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY

 

 

SHELLY PREWITT

†††††††††††

††††††††††† Appellant,

Appeal No. CRC 04-41 APANO

UCN522004AP000041XXXXCR

v.

 

STATE OF FLORIDA

 

††††††††††† Appellee.

_____________________________/

 

 

Opinion filed __________________.

 

Appeal from a judgment and sentence

entered by the Pinellas County Court

County Judge Paul Levine

 

Sean Kelley, Esq.

Attorney for appellant

 

Rex Blake, Esq.

Assistant State Attorney

 

ORDER AND OPINION

 

††††††††††† (J. Demers)

 

††††††††††† THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendantís appeal from a judgment and sentence entered by the Pinellas County Court. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the judgment and sentence.

††††††††††† The defendant pleaded no contest to DUI charges. He reserved his right to appeal the trial courtís denial of his motion to suppress. The defendant claims that the police had no valid reason to stop his vehicle. The standard of review in this case is de novo. See Conner v. State, 803 So.2d 598 (Fla. 2001).

††††††††††† This Courtís review of the videotape reveals ample reason to stop the defendantís vehicle. The defendant was repeatedly weaving both within and without of his lane. This was sufficient to establish a pattern of erratic driving, thereby justifying a stop. See Yanes v. State, 877 So.2d 25 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Moreover, the deputy testified that prior to activating the videotape the defendant made an improper turn and was speeding.[1] Any one of these reasons would have justified the stop. Therefore, the trial court was correct to deny the defendantís motion to suppress.

††††††††††† IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

††††††††††† DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this _____ day of June, 2005.

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ________________________

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† David A. Demers

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Circuit Judge

 

 

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ________________________

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Robert J. Morris, Jr.

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Circuit Judge

 

 

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ________________________

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Irene S. Sullivan

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Circuit Judge

 

cc:†† State Attorney

 

††††††† Sean Kelley, Esq.

 

††††††† Judge Levine

†††††††††††



[1] The defendantís reliance upon Dorbin v. Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 874 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 2003) is misplaced. In Dorbin it was not clear that the defendant was actually speeding --- the officer only wrote in his report that the defendant was driving at a high rate of speed. In the case at bar the deputy clearly testified that the defendant was speeding.