Where defendant was weaving within lane, applying brakes for
no apparent reason and maintaining erratic speed, stop justified. Judgment and
sentence affirmed.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING
AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
DEBORAH ANDERSON
Appellant,
v. Appeal No. CRC 05-61 APANO
UCN522005AP000061XXXXCR
STATE OF
Appellee.
______________________________/
Opinion filed _____________________.
Appeal from a judgment and sentence
entered by the Pinellas County Court
County Judge John Carballo
Roger Futerman, Esq.
Attorney for appellant
Della Jensen, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney
ORDER AND OPINION
(J. Morris)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant’s 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 entered a no contest plea to DUI charges, reserving her right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. She claims the trial court erred in not granting her motion to suppress.
At approximately 1:30 A.M., the police noticed the defendant’s motor vehicle. The deputy testified that the defendant was weaving within her lane (touching the left-side lane marker once), applying her brakes a couple of times for no apparent reason, and maintaining an erratic speed (speeding up and then suddenly slowing down). The police followed her for a mile and a half. Although the defendant did not commit any traffic infraction, the deputy testified that, based upon the defendant’s driving, he believed the defendant was ill, tired, or impaired. The deputy making the stop was experienced with DUI cases, having made a couple of hundred DUI stops as a deputy and as a Florida Highway Patrol Trooper. Another deputy in the car also testified that she believed the defendant was impaired. For these reasons, the police stopped the defendant’s vehicle. After the police stopped the defendant and made contact with her, they observed signs of impairment. The defendant was ultimately arrested for DUI.
The defendant claims the stop was improper because she was not driving improperly or unusually. In support of her claim, the defendant invited this Court to view the video made by the deputies while they were following the defendant. This Court has reviewed the video, and finds it inconclusive. The video is of poor quality, and the defendant’s vehicle is too far ahead of the deputies for the video to record fully the defendant’s driving. The video, however, does not contradict the deputies’ testimony.
In Kronz v. State, No. CRC 03-42 APANO
(
In the case at bar, the facts are strikingly similar. Therefore, the decision to deny the defendant’s motion to suppress was proper.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the judgment and sentence is affirmed.
DONE
AND ORDERED in Chambers at
_____________________________
David A. Demers
Circuit Judge
____________________________
Robert J. Morris, Jr.
Circuit Judge
_____________________________
Irene H. Sullivan
Circuit Judge
cc: State Attorney
Roger Futerman, Esq.
Judge Carballo