IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN
AND
APPELLATE
DIVISION
DAVID MICHAEL DWELLY,
Appellant,
vs.
Appeal No. CRC 03-00062 APANO
UCN522003AP000062XXXXCR
STATE OF
Appellee.
____________________________________/
Opinion
filed ________________________
Appeal
from Judgment of Guilt
Judge
Sonny Im
Judge
Dorothy Vaccaro
Christopher
J. Dale, Esquire
Richard
W. Bisconti, Esquire
Attorneys
for Appellant
Erin
K. Barnett, Assistant State Attorney
Attorney
for Appellee
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on appeal, filed by David Michael Dwelly (Dwelly), from the Judgment of Guilt for DUI, entered June 21, 2003. Dwelly entered a plea of no contest after the trial court denied his motion to suppress DUI evidence in which Dwelly argued that he was unlawfully stopped for having an inoperable taillight. Upon review of the briefs, the record, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court reverses the judgment as set forth below.
The record shows that on April 13, 2002, at approximately midnight, Deputy Dirn, of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, conducted a traffic stop of Dwelly after observing his vehicle with an inoperable left taillight. Three of the vehicle’s four taillights were still illuminated, 1 on the left side and 2 on the right side. Deputy Dirn noticed that Dwelly was weaving in his lane, but did not cross the lines. Deputy Dirn did not have any difficulty seeing Dwelly and traffic was light. Upon making contact with Dwelly, Deputy Dirn observed signs of impairment and initiated a DUI investigation. Dwelly refused to perform the field sobriety and breath tests and was arrested for DUI. Deputy Dirn also issued a citation to Dwelly for inoperable taillight.
On appeal, Dwelly argues that the trial court erred in
denying his motion to suppress because no traffic infraction had occurred
and there was no articulable suspicion of criminal activity. In interpreting the evidence in a manner most
favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling and in applying a de novo
review of the application of law to the facts, the Court finds that the trial
court’s ruling must be reversed. See
Nicholas v. State, 857 So.2d 980, 981 (
Florida Statutes, § 316.610, prohibits the driving of
a vehicle “in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person or property,
or which does not contain those parts or is not at all times equipped with
such lamps and other equipment in proper condition and adjustment as required
by this chapter.” This section must
be read in conjunction with Florida Statutes, § 316.221, the section specifically
delineating the requirements for taillights.
See Doctor v. State, 596 So.2d 442, 446 (
The plain reading of the statute applied to the facts
of this case demonstrate that no traffic violation occurred as Deputy Dirn
testified that 3 taillights were still operable. Therefore the traffic stop was unlawful and
the subsequently obtained DUI evidence must be suppressed. See Doctor, 596 So.2d at 447 (concluding
that since the vehicle had at least two taillamps in working order, initial
traffic stop for “defective taillight” was illegal); Frierson v. State,
851 So.2d 293, 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(holding that stop was without reasonable
cause as cracked left tail light was operating); Wilhelm v. State,
515 So.2d 1343, 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)(finding that motorist whose vehicle
had four tail lights, only one of which was inoperable, was not in violation
of statute requiring two operable taillights); compare with Williams
v. State, 649 So.2d 1206, 1208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)(determining that traffic
stop was valid as vehicle did not have two operative, illuminated taillamps
during darkness). The Court finds that
the fact Dwelly was observed weaving within his lane does not change this
conclusion, as there was no evidence presented that Dwelly’s driving behavior
created a safety concern or otherwise constituted criminal activity. See e.g. Jordan v. State,
831 So.2d 1241, 1243 (
Therefore, it is,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Judgment of
Guilt is reversed and this cause is remanded to the trial court for action
consistent with this order and opinion.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at
___________________________________
ROBERT J. MORRIS, JR.
Circuit Judge
___________________________________
IRENE SULLIVAN
Circuit Judge
___________________________________
DAVID A. DEMERS
Circuit Judge
Copies furnished to:
Judge Dorothy Vaccaro
Judge Sonny Im
Christopher J. Dale, Esquire
Richard W. Bisconti, Esquire
Erin K. Barnett, Assistant State Attorney