Littles v. State
| Docket Number | Case No. 5D22-944. |
| Decision Date | 07 February 2023 |
| Citation | 354 So.3d 1169 |
| Parties | William LITTLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert R. Berry , of Law Office of Robert R. Berry, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody , Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport , Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
At issue is whether an officer's mistaken belief that he was in a left-turn lane, which led to the invalid traffic stop in this case, was objectively reasonable under the specific circumstances presented.
In the predawn hours, William Littles was driving a rented car southbound on Ronald Reagan Boulevard near Lake Mary, Florida, when he stopped at a traffic signal at the intersection with US-17. Both roadways consist of multiple lanes. At the same time, Deputy Jonathan Jusino was on his way to grab morning coffee at a Wawa store located adjacent to the intersection.
The officer regularly patrols this area and was familiar with the intersection.
The officer stopped at the red light behind Littles. When the traffic signals for the two left-turn lanes changed to green, Littles—who was in the thru lane and had not engaged his car's left-turn signal—did not move. The officer did not honk at Littles or otherwise try to prod Littles to proceed while the left-turn signals were operative.
After the left-turn signals cycled back to red, the traffic signals for the thru lanes turned green. Littles then proceeded through the intersection in a lawful manner. Deputy Jusino followed Littles through the intersection and initiated a traffic stop based on his belief that Littles had changed lanes from a left-turn lane to the thru lane in the intersection itself. During the interchange with Littles, the officer contended that Littles had been stopped in the rightward most of the two left-turn lanes at the intersection; Littles insisted that the officer was mistaken, and that he was in the thru lane. Littles's vehicle was subsequently subjected to a K-9 search an hour later that resulted in the discovery of illegal drugs.
Littles moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered, contending that the traffic stop was unlawful. An evidentiary hearing was held at which the officer and Littles testified. Video taken from dashcams of the officer's vehicle as well as a backup officer's vehicle were admitted and shown; Littles was also allowed to admit videos he had taken within a few days of the incident. In its written order, the trial court concluded that Littles "was not in a turn lane and therefore could not have missed a green-lighted turn cycle and did not illegally change lanes in the intersection." The trial court, however, concluded that the intersection was "confusing" due to nearby construction and that "different visual angles produce[d] different appearances." On this basis, and though it found the question an exceedingly close one, the trial judge ruled that the officer's mistake was an objectively reasonable one and thereby denied the motion to suppress.
Review of the trial court's ruling is twofold; we defer to the trial court's factual findings if supported by competent substantial evidence, but we independently determine whether the trial court's legal conclusion is sustainable. State v. Wimberly, 988 So.2d 116, 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). "However, to the extent that the trial court's findings are based on viewing [video evidence], which this court of course has also viewed, we utilize a much less deferential standard." Black v. State, 59 So.3d 340, 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); see State v. Thornton, 286 So.3d 924, 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (citing Black). Applying these standards, we agree with the trial court that the officer was mistaken in his belief that Littles was in a left-turn lane, but we disagree that the mistake was objectively reasonable under the specific circumstances of this case.
As to the officer's mistaken view, the entirety of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as the trial court concluded, that Littles was in a thru lane, not a left-turn lane. The evidence also clearly shows that Littles did nothing illegal at the intersection or while proceeding through it. The officer's subjective view, that he and Littles were in a left-turn lane, was demonstrably incorrect; unclear is why the officer persisted in his view despite the clearly contradictory evidence. In any event, an officer's subjective view is not relevant where the evidentiary record demonstrates it is untenable. As a factual matter, the entire record unequivocally establishes that Littles was in the thru lane and did nothing wrong as his car moved through the intersection.
Next is whether the officer's mistake was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Wimberly, 988 So. 2d at 119 (); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). The reason that deference is given to officers in the field for mistakes of fact is due to the difficult and dangerous situations they encounter, which often require snap judgments. Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 87, 107 S.Ct. 1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987) (). Police officers are people, and people make mistakes all the time. That said, mistaken beliefs are not automatically forgiven simply because officers are human and make mistakes; if that were the...
To continue reading
Request your trial