Cahill v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cahill v. State

595 So. 2d 258, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2656, 1992 WL 43282

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 11, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1194

StatusPublished

This text of 595 So. 2d 258 (Cahill v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cahill v. State, 595 So. 2d 258, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2656, 1992 WL 43282 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The issue involved in this appeal is the constitutionality of a D.U.I. roadblock. The issue has been considered by the Florida courts in State v. Jones, 483 So.2d 433 (Fla.1986), and by the United States Supreme Court in Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 2485, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990). The trial court made factual findings that the roadblock procedure met the constitutional tests enunciated in those opinions. We find no error. The appellant has most strongly challenged here the delay factor caused by the roadblock. The trial court found that the time of delay from encounter until the time appellant was asked to step out of his car was three to four minutes. We agree with the trial court the time of delay was constitutionally permissible. See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976).

HERSEY, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The issue involved in this appeal is the constitutionality of a D.U.I. roadblock. The issue has been considered by the Florida courts in State v. Jones, 483 So.2d 433 (Fla.1986), and by the United States Supreme Court in Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 2485, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990). The trial court made factual findings that the roadblock procedure met the constitutional tests enunciated in those opinions. We find no error. The appellant has most strongly challenged here the delay factor caused by the roadblock. The trial court found that the time of delay from encounter until the time appellant was asked to step out of his car was three to four minutes. We agree with the trial court the time of delay was constitutionally permissible. See United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976).

HERSEY, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

595 So. 2d 258, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 2656, 1992 WL 43282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cahill-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack