Defendant’s driving pattern sufficient to justify a stop
where defendant weaved within his lane on three occasions, each time making
sharp, jerky adjustments. Judgment and sentence affirmed. Moffat
v. State, No. CRC 06-33 APANO, (
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING
AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
DAVID MOFFAT
Appellant,
v. Appeal No. CRC 06-33 APANO
UCN522006AP00033XXXXCR
STATE OF
Appellee.
______________________________/
Opinion filed ____________________.
Appeal from a sentence entered by
the
County Judge William H. Overton
Jason Thomas, Esquire
Assistant State Attorney
Marc Pelletier, Esquire
Attorney for appellee
ORDER AND OPINION
(J. Demers)
The defendant is appealing the decision of the Pinellas County Court to deny his motion to suppress. He pleaded no contest to DUI charges, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the decision of the trial court.
At approximately 1:00 in the morning, a deputy observed the defendant’s truck weaving within its lane on three occasions. Each time the defendant made sharp, jerky corrections. The deputy followed the defendant for eight blocks. Based upon the deputy’s experience (4 years in the DUI unit), he believed the pattern of driving indicated the defendant might be DUI, so he conducted a traffic stop. The defendant was ultimately arrested for DUI. He made a motion to suppress, but the trial court denied it. It is that decision that is the subject of this appeal.
“[A]
trial court’s 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 court’s ruling.” Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (
The defendant’s pattern of driving was sufficiently unusual to justify a stop. See Bailey v. State, 319 So.2d 22 (Fla. 1975)(because of the dangers inherent to our modern vehicular mode of life, the police may be justified in stopping a vehicle to determine the reason for its unusual operation); Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. DeShong, 603 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)(a legitimate concern for the safety of the motoring public can warrant a brief investigatory stop to determine if the driver is ill, tired, or driving under the influence in situations less suspicious than that required for other types of criminal behavior); State v. Davidson, 744 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(police observation of defendant driving significantly below speed limit and drifting in and out of lane warranted stop); Ndow v. State, 864 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)(if police observe motor vehicle being operated in unusual manner, there might be justification for stop even when no traffic infraction seen or citation given).
Moreover,
the officer testified that based upon his experience and training the
defendant’s driving pattern (three instances of weaving within eight blocks,
same corrective jerking movement each time) was consistent with someone who was
impaired. This is sufficient justification for a stop. See Roberts v. State,
732 So.2d 1127 (
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the decision of the trial court to deny the defendant’s motion to suppress is affirmed.
DONE
AND ORDERED in St.Petersburg,
___________________________
David A. Demers
Circuit Court Judge
____________________________
Raymond O. Gross
Circuit Court Judge
_____________________________
Robert J. Morris, Jr.
Circuit Court Judge
cc: Office of the State Attorney
Honorable William H. Overton
Marc Pelletier, Esq.