Petition for Writ
of Certiorari to Review Quasi-Judicial Action, Department of Highway Safety
and Motor Vehicles: DRIVER’S LICENSES
– Traffic Stop – failure to maintain single lane – Department departed from
the essential requirements of law by failing to invalidate traffic stop –
there was not an objectively reasonable basis to conduct the traffic stop
-- there was not competent substantial evidence that Petitioner’s vehicular
movements created a danger to himself or other traffic – no evidence that
officer suspected Petitioner was driving under the influence or that officer
conducted traffic stop to determine if Petitioner was ill or tired -- Petition
granted. Boyd v. Dept. of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles, No. 02-9322CI-88B (
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND
APPEALLATE DIVISION
CHARLES W. BOYD
Petitioner,
vs. Appeal No. 03-5038AP-88B
UCN522003CA005038XXXXCV
STATE
OF
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY
SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES,
Respondent.
________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and the Response. Upon consideration of the same, the record and being otherwise fully advised, the Court finds the Petition must be granted as set forth below.
The Petitioner, Charles W. Boyd (Boyd), seeks review of the Final Order
of License Suspension, entered June 19, 2003, in which the hearing officer
for the Respondent, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Department),
concluded that Boyd’s driving privileges were properly suspended for a period
of eighteen months for driving under the influence (DUI) and refusing to submit
to a breath test. In reviewing the
Department’s order, this Court must determine (1) whether procedural due process
had been accorded, (2) whether the essential requirements of law had been
observed, and (3) whether the administrative findings and judgment were supported
by competent substantial evidence. See
Vichich v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 799 So.2d
1069, 1073 (
The Court accepts Boyd’s argument that the hearing officer’s decision to sustain his license suspension was not supported by competent substantial evidence.
This case is in much the same posture as the one recently addressed
by the Florida Supreme Court in Dobrin v. Department of Highway Safety
and Motor Vehicle, --- So.2d ---, 2004 WL 306051 (Fla. Feb. 19, 2004). In that case, the officer stopped petitioner’s
vehicle for failure to maintain a single lane. Similarly to this case, the circuit court had
only the record evidence of the paperwork that the officer filed as a result
of the traffic stop. Upon review, the
circuit court held that there was no competent substantial evidence to support
the traffic stop. The court concluded
that (1) the facts contained in the arrest report did not provide probable
cause to stop petitioner’s vehicle for failure to maintain a single lane;
(2) the record did not support the traffic stop on the basis of speeding because
the record did not indicate that the petitioner was speeding; and (3) the
officer was not justified in stopping the petitioner to determine whether
he was ill, tired, or driving under the influence because the arrest report
did not indicate that the officer stopped petitioner for impairment.
In our case as in Dobrin, the facts contained in the report did not provide probable cause to stop Boyd’s vehicle for failure to maintain a single lane. See Jordan v. State, 831 So.2d 1241,1243 (Fla. 5 DCA 2002) (it is not possible to maintain a lane at all times, thus, the crucial concern is safety rather than precision). See Crooke v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (probable cause requires objective evidence that the driver’s conduct created a reasonable safety concern). Additionally, the officer was not justified in stopping Boyd to determine whether he was ill, tired, or driving under the influence because the report did not indicate that impairment was the reason that Boyd was stopped. Clearly Dobrin compels this Court to grant the petition.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is granted.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at
__________________________
DAVID A. DEMERS
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
Copies furnished to:
Roger D. Futerman, Esquire
13620
49th Street No –
Rhonda F. Goodman, Assistant General Counsel
Bureau of Driver Improvement