County Criminal Court: CRIMINAL LAW – Search and Seizure – Stop – Video did not support the stop, particularly when the video did not fully support the police officer’s testimony. Order granting defendant’s motion to suppress affirmed. Farmer v. State, No. CRC 05-76 APANO, (Fla. 6th Cir.App.Ct. May 19, 2006).

 

 

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING

AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY

 

STATE OF FLORIDA

            Appellant,

v.                                                                                                                                                                   Appeal No. CRC 05-76 APANO

     UCN522005AP000076XXXXCR

RICHARD LEE FARMER, II

            Appellee.

______________________________/

 

Opinion filed __________________.

 

Appeal from a decision of the

Pinellas County Court

County Judge Paul Levine

 

Rohom Khonsari, Esq.

Assistant State Attorney

 

Steve Bartlett, Esq.

Attorney for appellee

ORDER AND OPINION

 

            THIS MATTER is before the Court on the State’s appeal from a decision of the Pinellas County Court granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the decision of the trial court.

 “[A] trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress comes to the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the reviewing court must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.” Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (Fla. 2002).  Whether or not the application of the law to the facts establishes an adequate basis for probable cause, however, is subject to a de novo standard of review. See Nicholas v. State, 857 So.2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

            The State contends that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. It claims that the testimony, together with the video, demonstrates that the officer was justified in stopping the defendant based upon the defendant’s driving. The trial court, however, found the defendant was only “casually drifting in his lane.” Moreover, the trial court found that the testimony of the officer was, at times, at odds with the video.

 This Court has reviewed the video; and finds that it does not support the State’s contention. The driving depicted does not support a stop. Although this Court recognizes that the State’s argument is only partially based upon the video, this Court agrees with the trial court that the video does not fully support the conclusions of the officer. Therefore, the trial court was correct to grant the defendant’s motion to suppress.

            IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the decision of the trial court is affirmed.

            DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this _____ day of May, 2006.

                                                                                    _____________________________

                                                                                                J. Thomas McGrady

                                                                                                Circuit Judge

 

 

 

                                                                                    _____________________________

                                                                                                R. Timothy Peters

                                                                                                Circuit Judge

 

 

 

                                                                                    _____________________________

                                                                                                John A. Schaefer

                                                                                                Circuit Judge

cc:        State Attorney

            Judge Levine

            Steve Bartlett, Esq.