Stop proper where police received anonymous tip that
defendant was driving a particular vehicle at a particular location without a
valid driver’s license when tip gave the defendant’s name, date of birth, and
make, color, and license plate number, and police corroborated that defendant
had a suspended driver’s license and that vehicle was registered to defendant’s
mother. Judgment and sentence affirmed. Samuelson v. State, No. CRC
05-33 APANO, (
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
DANIEL SAMUELSON
Appellant,
Appeal No. CRC 05-00033 APANO
UCN522005AP000033XXXXCR
v.
STATE OF
Appellee.
___________________________/
Opinion filed __________________.
Appeal from a judgment and sentence
entered by the Pinellas County Court
County Judge Dorothy Vaccaro
Roger Futerman, Esq.
Attorney for appellant
Kelly McKnight, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney
ORDER AND OPINION
(J. Morris)
THIS
MATTER is before the Court on the defendant, Daniel Samuelson’s, appeal from a
judgment and sentence entered by the
The defendant entered a no contest plea to DWLSR charges; and he reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The defendant claims that the police had no right to stop the vehicle that he was driving.
The police received an anonymous tip that a particular individual was driving a particular vehicle at a particular location. The tip gave the individual’s name, his date of birth, and the make, color, model, and license plate number of the vehicle. The tip said that the driver had a suspended driver’s license and that he was driving home from work. An officer who patrolled the area where the individual was said to be driving, checked the individual’s name and corroborated that the individual did have a suspended driver’s license. The officer viewed a photograph of the individual. The officer also testified that he learned that the vehicle that was being driven by the individual was registered to the individual’s mother. Three days after receiving this information, the officer, while on patrol, noticed the suspect vehicle being driven. Although the officer could not be sure that the driver was the individual who had the suspended driver’s license, the driver did very generally match the individual --- a white male with brown hair. The officer verified that the defendant’s driver’s license was still suspended, and then made a stop to investigate. Upon making the stop, the officer recognized that the driver (defendant) was the individual that had the suspended driver’s license. The defendant was subsequently arrested for DWLSR. The defendant filed a motion to suppress, but that motion was denied. The defendant is appealing that denial.
The
order denying the motion to suppress was decided on an issue of law. Therefore,
the standard of review is de novo. Ornelas
v.
An anonymous tip can provide the
basis for a valid stop if the information in the tip is corroborated by the
police. State v. Maynard, 783 So.2d 226 (
It is clear that
the officer had knowledge that the defendant’s license was suspended. That knowledge
came from the tip plus the officer verified it with the DMV, both when he got
the tip and again just before he made the stop. That knowledge established not
just reasonable suspicion for the detention of the defendant, but probable
cause for the defendant’s arrest if he was seen driving.
The question,
however, is whether or not the officer had at least reasonable suspicion to
believe that the defendant was, as the trial judge found, the person driving
the detained vehicle. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into
consideration when determining if the officer has a reasonable suspicion of
criminal activity. See Grant v. State, 718 So.2d 238 (
This court holds that the totality of the circumstances were sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. Those circumstances were: (1) just three days before making the stop the officer had a very specific tip about a particular individual who was driving without a driver’s license; (2) the officer corroborated that portion of the tip that the suspect had a suspended driver’s license and re-corroborated that fact moments before he made the stop; (3) the officer also had a very specific tip that the suspect was driving a particular vehicle with a particular tag number, and this portion of the tip corroborated by the officer learning that the registered owner of the vehicle was the suspect’s mother.
Three days after the tip the officer saw a white male driving the vehicle matching that description and registered to the defendant’s mother. The defendant suggests that it could have been the defendant’s brother or some other white male driving the vehicle. While that is certainly true, it makes no difference to the outcome. The standard is reasonable suspicion, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Clearly under the totality of the circumstances there were sufficient articulable facts for the officer to suspect that it was the defendant who was unlawfully driving the vehicle. Therefore, the officer was justified in stopping the defendant to investigate his reasonable suspicion. The trial court was correct to deny the defendant’s motion to suppress. The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
DONE
AND ORDERED in Chambers at
______________________________
David A. Demers
Circuit Judge
____________________________
Robert J. Morris, Jr.
Circuit Judge
____________________________
Irene H. Sullivan
Circuit Judge
cc: State Attorney
Roger Futerman, Esq.
Judge Vaccaro