Petition for Writ of
Certiorari to Review Quasi-Judicial Action, Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles: DRIVER’S LICENSES – traffic stop – officer
observed driver’s head bobbing up and down, but observed no traffic infraction
or safety concern - when officer ordered driver to stop vehicle, detention
occurred – officer did not articulate reasonable, objective grounds for the
detention - Petition granted. Stenmark v. Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor
Vehicles, No. 05-0051AP-88B (
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND
APPELLATE DIVISION
DEBORAH STENMARK,
Petitioner,
vs. Appeal No. 05-0051AP-88B
UCN522005AP000051XXXXCV
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 granted as set forth below.
The
Petitioner, Deborah Stenmark (Stenmark), seeks review of the Final Order of
License Suspension, entered June 10, 2005, in which the hearing officer for the
Respondent, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department),
concluded that Stenmark’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 Stenmark 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 (
After a formal review hearing in which the hearing officer considered documents generated at the time of Stenmark’s arrest and the testimony of one witness, Stenmark, the hearing officer made the following findings of fact:
On
April 23, 2005, at approximately 1:55 a.m., Officer Martens, of the Largo
Police Department, pulled up next to Deborah Stenmark who was stopped in the
left turn lane at the intersection of US Highway 19 and
Upon making contact with Ms. Stenmark, Officer Martens observed food scattered around her, including food in her lap and she appeared disoriented. Officer Martens detected a distinct odor of alcoholic beverage coming from her breath, slurred speech and bloodshot watery eyes. Ms. Stenmark was very unsteady on her feet, almost falling backwards, and would not perform Field Sobriety Exercises.
Officer Martens arrested Ms. Stenmark for DUI and transported her to the Largo Police Department. Ms. Stenmark submitted to a breath test with results of .101 and .101. Ms. Stenmark’s privilege to drive was suspended for driving with an unlawful alcohol level.
Ms. Stenmark testified at the formal review that she has [sic] just pulled out of a Taco Bell approximately 30 feet from where she had stopped. A drink and taco spilled into her lap and she was picking up the food off the floor and watching for the light to turn green, causing her head to go up and down. The light turned green and she began to move when she hear [sic] a man yelling at her to stop. When she realized it was a police officer she stopped and he reached in and took the keys. She testified that she did not pass out or fall asleep.
The hearing officer denied Stenmark’s motion to invalidate the license suspension due to a lack of probable cause to conduct the traffic stop.
The sole
argument before this Court is that the license suspension should have been
invalidated due to a lack of probable cause by Officer Martens to conduct a traffic
stop of Stenmark. This Court agrees that
there is not competent substantial evidence in the record to support the
traffic stop under the facts presented in this case. Initially, the Court finds that once Officer
Martens ordered Stenmark to stop her vehicle, a detention had occurred. See Woods v. State, 890 So.2d
559, 561 (
The
Court finds that Officer Martens failed to articulate reasonable, objective
grounds for detaining Stenmark. While it
appears that Officer Martens was concerned about Stenmark’s well-being, stating
in his Narrative that Stenmark appeared to have “passed out,” Stenmark’s
undisputed testimony was that she was trying to pick up her spilled food and
then started to move forward once the light turned green. The Court finds that since the actions of
Stenmark are susceptible of being interpreted as innocent conduct, Officer
Martens needed to articulate additional facts before he could validly conduct a
traffic stop. See Danielwicz
v. State, 730 So.2d 363, 362 (
Further,
the Court finds that there is nothing in the record to show that Officer
Martens suspected Stenmark of driving under the influence at the time of the
detention, that Stenmark had committed a traffic infraction, nor that her
driving behavior was erratic or created a safety concern to herself or
others. See e.g. Jordan
v. State, 831 So.2d 1241, 1243 (
ORDERED
AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is granted and the
Final Order of License Suspension is quashed.
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
Jason Helfant, Assistant General Counsel
Bureau of Administrative Reviews