Petition for Writ of
Certiorari to Review Quasi-Judicial Action, Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles: DRIVER’S LICENSES – actual physical control –
hearing officer charged with weighing conflicting evidence – competent
substantial evidence in the record supports hearing officer’s conclusion that
driver was in actual physical control of vehicle – officer observed vehicle
drive erratically and observed driver exit the vehicle - Petition denied. Gostyla v.
Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, No. 05-0020AP-88B (6th
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND
APPELLATE DIVISION
SCOTT GOSTYLA,
Petitioner,
vs. Appeal No. 05-0020AP-88B
UCN522005AP000020XXXXCV
STATE OF
HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES,
DIVISION OF DRIVER LICENSES,
Respondent.
____________________________________________/
THIS CAUSE came before
the Court on the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, the Response, and the
Reply. Upon
consideration of the same, the record and being otherwise fully advised, the
Court finds that the Petition must be denied as set forth below.
The
Petitioner, Scott Gostyla (Gostyla), seeks review of the Final Order of License
Suspension, entered February 18, 2005, in which the hearing officer for the
Respondent, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department),
concluded that Gostyla’s driving privilege was properly suspended for a period
of six months for driving under the influence (DUI). In reviewing the Final Order and the
administrative action taken by the Department, this Court must determine
whether Gostyla was afforded procedural due process, whether the essential requirements
of law were observed, and whether the Department’s findings and judgment are
supported by competent substantial evidence.
See Vichich v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles,
799 So.2d 1069, 1073 (
The record shows that on December 30, 2004, at approximately 1:45 a.m., Deputy Christie, of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, was standing at a Hess gas station when he observed a black vehicle enter the parking lot. Deputy Christie visually estimated that the vehicle was traveling at forty-five m.p.h. and it appeared to Deputy Christie that the vehicle was not going to stop. Approximately five feet before reaching a parking space, the driver applied the brakes which caused the front tires to lock up. The vehicle then slid to a stop approximately four feet from the sidewalk. The driver, identified as Gostyla, exited the vehicle and immediately went to the trunk. Deputy Christie approached Gostyla and asked him if everything was okay, to which Gostyla responded “yes.” Deputy Christie observed several signs of impairment, including bloodshot, watery eyes, slurred speech and poor balance. Deputy Christie then asked Gostyla for his driver’s license, which he had trouble retrieving, and detained him for investigation. Gostyla failed the subsequent field sobriety tests and the results of the breath tests were .185g/210L and .191g/210L.
Before this Court, Gostyla argues
that his license suspicion should have been invalidated as there was not
probable cause to initiate a traffic stop and there was a lack of evidence that
Gostyla was in actual physical control. In
addressing these issues, the Court finds that Deputy Christie’s initial contact
with Gostyla was a consensual citizen/police encounter not a traffic stop;
Deputy Christie was already at the Hess station when the vehicle pulled into
the parking lot and Gostyla voluntarily exited his vehicle. See Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185,
187-88 (
In addressing the remaining issue,
the Court reiterates that the hearing officer, as the fact finder, was charged
with determining whether Deputy Christie had probable cause to believe that Gostyla
was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the
influence. See Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Satter, 643 So.2d 692, 695 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1994); see also Fieselman v. State of
In this case, the hearing officer
considered the testimony of the Paige Russell, who stated that she was driving
the vehicle while sitting on Gostlya’s lap, then climbed off Gostlya and exited
the vehicle from the passenger’s side once the vehicle came to a stop. However, Deputy Christie’s Offense Report
identifies Gostlya as the driver and the individual he observed exiting the
driver’s side. The hearing officer was
charged with weighing the conflicting evidence in reaching the conclusion that
Gostlya was in actual physical control of the vehicle. The Court cannot reweigh the evidence to arrive
at a different conclusion. See id.
Therefore,
it is,
ORDERED
AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of
Certiorari is denied.
DONE
AND ORDERED in Chambers, at
______________________________
DAVID
A. DEMERS
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
_____________________________ _____________________________
PETER
RAMSBERGER ANTHONY
RONDOLINO
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division Circuit Judge, Appellate Divison
Copies furnished to:
J. Kevin Hayslett, Esquire
Carlos J. Raurell, Assistant General Counsel
Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles
Bureau of Administrative Reviews