State v. Eady

Decision Date07 February 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-158,88-158
Citation538 So.2d 96
PartiesThe STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Norman EADY, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Henry H. Harnage, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and COPE, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The state appeals from and we reverse an order suppressing the weapon involved in a prosecution for carrying a concealed firearm on the ground that the traffic stop for speeding which led to its discovery was unjustified.

Officer Gatterello of the Miami Police Department was on routine patrol in his cruiser in the mixed commercial-residential northwest section of the city when he saw a vehicle proceeding at what he described as "a high rate of speed" and "heard a tire screeching and like a passing gear kicking in." After the car passed him and continued to speed up, Gatterello pulled it over. A computer check revealed that the operator, the appellee Eady, was driving with a suspended license and had an open bench warrant. After the officer arrested Eady on these grounds, a concededly valid search of the car 1 revealed a pistol concealed under the front seat. The trial judge granted the defendant's motion to suppress the gun on the ground, as reflected by Gatterello's candid statements at the suppression hearing, that the officer could not be "sure" the defendant was exceeding the speed limit and that he wished to stop him only for a warning that this might be the case. These facts do not support the order under review.

There is no question that neither proof beyond a reasonable doubt so as to justify a conviction nor even probable cause to believe that a traffic offense has been committed is required to support a police stop on that basis. Instead, only a simple "founded" or "reasonable" suspicion of a violation based on the officer's visual or aural perception is necessary. See Bailey v. State, 319 So.2d 22 (Fla.1975); State v. Cobbs, 411 So.2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In our judgment, this rule is clearly satisfied by the undisputed facts of this case. What Gatterello both saw and heard fully and objectively supported his suspicion that Eady was going too fast under the circumstances and was thus guilty of a violation of the law. See § 316.183(1), Fla.Stat. (1987) ("No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions, and having regard to the actual and potential hazards, then existing."); ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Department of Highway Safety v. Roberts, 5D05-3001.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 24 Marzo 2006
    ...from clearly established legal principles. We agree with the lower court that these precedents can be distinguished. In State v. Eady, 538 So.2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the officer testified that he saw a vehicle proceeding at "a high rate of speed" and "heard a tire screeching and like a pa......
  • State v. Allen
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 4 Abril 2008
    ...that the occupant has committed a traffic offense. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Eady, 538 So.2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The Third District has held that police may stop a vehicle for a speeding violation based on the officer's visual or aural ......
  • State v. Joy, 93-2149
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 31 Mayo 1994
    ...because an officer may stop a vehicle suspected of speeding based on the officer's visual and aural perceptions. See State v. Eady, 538 So.2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (officer's testimony that he saw a vehicle proceeding at "a high rate of speed," and "heard a tire screeching and like a passin......
  • Hanley v. State, 88-687
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 22 Agosto 1989
    ...for driving while license suspended, possession of cocaine and possession of LSD should be and are hereby affirmed. See State v. Eady, 538 So.2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Fields v. State, 369 So.2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); State v. Gustafson, 258 So.2d 1 (Fla.1972); Pafford v. State, 281 So.2d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT