IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY
APPELLATE DIVISION
RODGER WILLIAM CUMBEE,
Appellant,
vs.
Appeal No. CRC 00-19790
CFANO
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_________________________________/
Appeal
from Order on Motion to Suppress
Pinellas
County Court
County Judge William H. Overton
Douglas Barnard, Esq.
Attorney for Appellant
Jason Stedman
Assistant State Attorney
Attorney for Appellee
THIS
MATTER is before the Court on the defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s
order denying defendant’s motion to suppress.
After reviewing the briefs and record, this court affirms the trial
court’s decision.
“Appellate review of a motion
to suppress involves questions of both law and fact and an appellate court
must make a de novo review of the trial court's application of the law to
the facts.” Rosenquist v. State,
2000 WL 966039 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Furthermore,
“a ruling on a motion to suppress is presumptively correct, and a reviewing
court should interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions
drawn from the evidence in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial
court ruling.” Johnston v. State,
438 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1983); McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1978).
On
September 11, 1999, Deputy Robert Haimes of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s
Office was on routine patrol in Pinellas County near 54th Avenue
and Haines Road when he observed the defendant driving his van with an equipment
violation. After the initial stop,
the defendant was cited with improper equipment in violation of Sec. 316.610
Fla. Stat. (1999), and with DUI in violation of Sec. 316.193 Fla. Stat. (1999).
Defendant
filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained after the stop because the
police officer did not have reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the
stop. The defendant argued that the
stop for driving a vehicle in an unsafe condition was unjustified because
although the right rear tail light lens cover was cracked, it had been repaired
with an approved red lens tape and was visible for the distance required under
the statute. Defendant further argued
that both tail lamps and the stop lamps were working properly.
At
the suppression hearing, the deputy testified that “the right brake light
appeared…to be not working.” During
the State’s examination of the deputy videotape was received into evidence
and played. After listening to testimony
and viewing the videotape the trial judge found that the stop lamps were inoperable
and not in compliance with Sec. 316.222 and 316.234 Florida Statutes (1999),
and were, therefore, in violation of Sec. 316.610(1) Fla. Stat. (1999).
“As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable
where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has
occurred.” Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135
L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). Furthermore, the
court in State v. Snead, 707 So.2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) held that
an officer had probable cause to make a traffic stop where he observed that
the taillight and brake light on the driver’s side were inoperable, and no
further inquiry into the officer’s motivation for the stop was relevant.
Here, Deputy Haimes testified
that he stopped the defendant’s vehicle because he observed that the defendant’s
brake light was not operating properly. The deputy then cited the defendant under Sec. 316.610(1) for driving
a vehicle in an unsafe condition. Our
review of facts in the record including the videotape support the trial court’s
ruling that the deputy had probable cause to make the stop. There is no evidence to support the defendant’s
assertion that the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous.
It is therefore
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the trial court’s order denying the motion to
suppress is affirmed.
DONE
AND ORDERED in Chambers at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida this
6th day of July, 2001.
|
__________________________ W.
DOUGLAS BAIRD Circuit Judge NANCY MOATE LEY Circuit Judge
R. TIMOTHY PETERS Circuit Judge |
Copies
furnished to:
David
A. Neville, Esq.
Attorney
for Appellant
248
First Avenue North
St.
Petersburg, Florida 33701
Jason
Stedman, Esq.
Assistant
State Attorney
Attorney
for Appellee