State v. Christman, 2D01-5596.
| Decision Date | 24 January 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D01-5596.,2D01-5596. |
| Citation | 838 So.2d 1189 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Bo CHRISTMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charlie Crist, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Julius J. Aulisio, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellee.
The State appeals the trial court's order granting Bo Christman's motion to suppress. The trial court found that law enforcement improperly stopped Christman and requested driver's license information, which led to Christman's ultimate arrest, search of his vehicle, and the discovery of narcotics. We reverse.
Christman drove his automobile into a gas station at approximately 5:00 a.m. A sheriff's deputy was parked in the station's parking lot on break. Christman pulled his car up to the fuel pump and exited the vehicle. As he did so, the deputy pulled his marked car over to the area where Christman's vehicle was parked. The deputy's car was stopped perpendicular to the rear of Christman's car. The deputy spotted a transporter tag on the back of Christman's vehicle. Being unfamiliar with the tag, the deputy called out to Christman to inquire as to the nature of the tag. Christman walked over to the deputy, who was still in his car. As he engaged Christman in conversation, the deputy detected an odor of alcohol on Christman's breath and observed that Christman's eyes appeared bloodshot and glassy. The deputy exited his vehicle and asked Christman for his driver's license. When Christman produced the license, the deputy found that it was restricted to business purposes only. Upon inquiry, Christman advised that he had been just driving around. Because driving around at 5:00 a.m. did not amount to business purposes, the deputy arrested Christman on a violation of the license restriction. After taking Christman into custody, the deputy searched Christman's vehicle and found narcotics.
At the suppression hearing, the trial court found that "the police officer effectively stopped the Defendant by pulling his vehicle perpendicular to the Defendant while he was refueling his vehicle." Further, the court determined that the officer erred in asking for Christman's driver's license "when there was no articulable suspicion that a crime had been committed" and that this inquiry turned the incident into a stop. The trial court concluded that this was not an encounter because Christman's actions were innocent in nature. The court further determined that by directing the defendant to respond, the officer effectively detained Christman...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bannister v. State
...the trial court's legal conclusions de novo.” Navamuel v. State, 12 So.3d 1283, 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citing State v. Christman, 838 So.2d 1189, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)). “ ‘Both the United States and Florida Constitutions provide that persons shall not be ‘compelled’ to be witnesses ag......
-
Brye v. State
...3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is a mixed question of law and fact. See State v. Christman, 838 So.2d 1189, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The United States Supreme Court has stated that mixed questions of law and fact that ultimately determine constitutio......
-
Navamuel v. State
...921 So.2d 873, 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). In other words, we review the trial court's legal conclusions de novo. State v. Christman, 838 So.2d 1189, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). "The trial court is vested with the authority to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evide......
- Hale v. State