County Criminal Court: CRIMINAL LAW Ė Search and Seizure Ė Stop Ė Given short distance covered and condition of road, trial courtís finding of insufficient evidence to establish a pattern of unusual driving was justified. Order granting defendantís motion to suppress affirmed. State v. Clark, No. CRC 06-29 APANO, (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. May 14, 2007).

 

 

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 06-29 APANO

UCN522006AP00029XXXXCR

JUSTIN LOUIS CLARK

 

††††††††††† Appellee.

______________________________/

 

Opinion filed __________________.

 

Appeal from a decision of the

Pinellas County Court

Honorable John D. Carballo

 

Christopher LaBruzzo, Esquire

Assistant State Attorney

 

Marc Pelletier, Esquire

Attorney for appellee

ORDER AND OPINION

 

††††††††††† THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Stateís appeal from an order granting

 

the defendantís motion to suppress. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court

 

affirms the order granting the defendantís motion to suppress.

 

ď[A] trial courtís 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 courtís ruling.Ē 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 a stop, however, is subject to de novo review. See Nicholas v. State, 857 So.2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

The State does not contend that there was a traffic infraction in this case. The issue in this appeal is whether or not the driving was sufficiently unusual to justify a stop. This must be determined on a case by case basis, see Nicholas at 982; and must be determined under the totality of the circumstances. See Grant v. State, 718 So.2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

The trial court in this case was not persuaded by the officerís testimony that the defendantís driving was sufficiently unusual to justify a stop. The court was not persuaded to find a pattern of unusual driving, given both the short distance covered and the conditions of the roadway at the time of the stop. This Court agrees with the trial courtís decision. Accordingly, the order granting the motion to suppress is affirmed.

††††††††††† IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the order granting the defendantís motion to suppress is affirmed.

††††††††††† ORDERED at Clearwater, Florida this _____ day of April, 2007.

 

 

 

††††††††††† __________________________††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ______________________

††††††††††† ††††††††††† Linda R. Allan††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††† R. Timothy Peters

†††††††††††††††††† ††Circuit Court Judge††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††† Circuit Court Judge

 

 

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† __________________________

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††††† John A. Schaefer

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††††††† Circuit Court Judge

 

 

cc:††††††† Marc Pelletier, Esquire

††††††††††† Office of the State Attorney

††††††††††† Honorable John D. Carballo

†††††††††††