Crooks v. State, 97-03338
Citation | 710 So.2d 1041 |
Decision Date | 27 May 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 97-03338,97-03338 |
Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1323 Garnet CROOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Carl H. Lida of Law Offices of Carl H. Lida, P.A., Plantation, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Patricia E. Davenport and Johnny T. Salgado, Assistant Attorneys General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Garnet Crooks appeals his conviction and order of probation for possession of marijuana following the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress. The marijuana was found during an allegedly consensual search of Mr. Crooks' car, following a traffic stop for violation of section 316.089(1), Florida Statutes (1995). We reverse because the arresting deputy sheriff had no objective basis to stop this vehicle. See Holland v. State, 696 So.2d 757 (Fla.1997).
On January 21, 1997, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Mr. Crooks was driving a 1993 Jeep Cherokee northbound on I-75 in Collier County. On that afternoon, Deputy Clifford Deutsch and Trooper John Wilcox had decided to patrol the interstate in their marked cars as a two-car team. For some reason, they decided to follow Mr. Crooks' vehicle. It may be coincidental, but Mr. Crooks happens to be a 46-year-old United States citizen of Jamaican heritage who apparently wears his hair in a Rastafarian style.
As the officers followed Mr. Crooks, the trooper, traveling in the left lane, pulled up alongside Mr. Crooks' Jeep in the right lane, while the deputy followed behind Mr. Crooks at a safe distance. The deputy observed Mr. Crooks drive his car over the right-hand line on the edge of the right lane of northbound traffic. This movement was away from the trooper's car, and the trooper did not claim that this movement endangered him in any way. No testimony suggests that Mr. Crooks moved any great distance over the line into the emergency lane. The two officers continued to follow Mr. Crooks for a distance, and observed that he drifted over the right-hand line on two more occasions. No evidence was presented describing how far he drove over the line on these occasions, but it is clear that no other cars or pedestrians were near him on either occasion. Deputy Deutsch did not think that Mr. Crooks was intoxicated or otherwise impaired.
Based on these actions, Deputy Deutsch stopped Mr. Crooks for violation of section 316.089(1). Deputy Deutsch, who happens to patrol with a drug-trained canine in his car, asked Mr. Crooks if he would consent to a search; and he consented. 1 The search located a small quantity of marijuana.
Section 316.089 provides in pertinent part:
Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, the following rules,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Marx, 98,059.
...a violation only if the lane movement was made before the safety of the movement was ascertained. See, e.g., Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. App. 2 Dist.1998); State v. Tague, 676 N.W.2d 197, 203 (Iowa 2004); Rowe v. State, 363 Md. 424, 769 A.2d 879, 885 (2001); State v. McBroom......
-
State v. Smith, M2013-02818-SC-R11-CD
...threatening, the safety of other motorists, pedestrians or bystanders" (citing Nev.Rev.Stat. § 484.305(1) )); Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998) (holding that Florida's version of Section 123(1) is not violated unless "the driver's conduct created a reasonable safe......
-
State v. Abeln, WD 62180.
...does not, in and of itself, justify a traffic stop. See Rowe v. State, 363 Md. 424, 769 A.2d 879, 883-89 (2001); Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1042-43 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1998); State v. Lafferty, 291 Mont. 157, 967 P.2d 363, 365-66 (1998); Brown v. State, 188 Ga.App. 184, 372 S.E.2d 514, ......
-
U.S. v. Jones, 07-40002-01/02-SAC.
...a violation only if the lane movement was made before the safety of the movement was ascertained. See, e.g., Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. App. 2 Dist.1998); State v. Tague, 676 N.W.2d 197, 203 (Iowa 2004); Rowe v. State, 363 Md. 424, 769 A.2d 879, 885 (2001) State v. McBroom,......
-
Search and seizure
...turn across two tra൶c lanes. The court, citing Harrison , held that the investigatory stop was justiied. Florida Crooks v. State (1998) 710 So.2d 1041. O൶cer observed Crooks drive over the right lane line on three occasions. The testimony included that the o൶cer did not think that Crooks ......
-
Dui motions
...times permitted an enforcement stop.) In the following cases courts held that the detention was not justiied: • Crooks v. State , 710 So.2d 1041 (Fla. App. 1998). (The defendant drove over the right hand edge line on three occasions, but did not travel signiicantly into the emergency lane. ......
-
The Fourth Amendment, canine olfaction, and vehicle stops: time is of the es'scents'.
...of Florida's courts entirely share the U.S. Supreme Court's anti-motorist stance on the consent doctrine. See, e.g., Crooks v. State, 710 So. 2d 1041, 1042 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA [The deputy] testified at the suppression hearing that he asks the driver of every car that he stops whether a search ......