DeGroat v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

DeGroat v. State

583 So. 2d 1105, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7339, 1991 WL 140870

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 1, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2422

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 583 So. 2d 1105 (DeGroat 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

DeGroat v. State, 583 So. 2d 1105, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7339, 1991 WL 140870 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the denial of a motion to suppress claiming a law enforcement officer’s stop of the motor vehicle the defendant was operating on a public road without headlights was pretextual and citing Kehoe v. State, 521 So.2d 1094 (Fla.1988), Monroe v. State, 543 So.2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) and State v. Gibson, 560 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Section 316.217, Florida Statutes, provides that every vehicle operated upon highways within this state shall display lighted lamps and illuminating devices from sunset to sunrise and at certain other times. We hold as a matter of law that, with or without any subjective suspicions as to any other criminal activity, a reasonable law enforcement officer with the duty or authority to enforce traffic laws of this state should, and would, stop a vehicle moving on the highway at night without lighted headlights to remind, or to warn, or to give a traffic citation, and that after such a stop the officer has the legal right and duty to seize contraband in the vehicle in plain view of the officer from outside the vehicle.

The trial court’s findings of fact and reasonable conclusions of fact relating to [1106]*1106the stop and seizure come to this court with a presumption of correctness.

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, W., COWART and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals the denial of a motion to suppress claiming a law enforcement officer’s stop of the motor vehicle the defendant was operating on a public road without headlights was pretextual and citing Kehoe v. State, 521 So.2d 1094 (Fla.1988), Monroe v. State, 543 So.2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) and State v. Gibson, 560 So.2d 1370 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

Section 316.217, Florida Statutes, provides that every vehicle operated upon highways within this state shall display lighted lamps and illuminating devices from sunset to sunrise and at certain other times. We hold as a matter of law that, with or without any subjective suspicions as to any other criminal activity, a reasonable law enforcement officer with the duty or authority to enforce traffic laws of this state should, and would, stop a vehicle moving on the highway at night without lighted headlights to remind, or to warn, or to give a traffic citation, and that after such a stop the officer has the legal right and duty to seize contraband in the vehicle in plain view of the officer from outside the vehicle.

The trial court’s findings of fact and reasonable conclusions of fact relating to [1106]*1106the stop and seizure come to this court with a presumption of correctness.

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, W., COWART and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

583 So. 2d 1105, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7339, 1991 WL 140870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/degroat-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack