Gibbons v. State

Florida Circuit Courts

Gibbons v. State

49 Fla. Supp. 2d 29

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedAugust 21, 1991

DocketCase No. AP 90-0055 AC (A) 02

StatusPublished

This text of 49 Fla. Supp. 2d 29 (Gibbons v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gibbons v. State, 49 Fla. Supp. 2d 29 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Daniel Gibbons was cited with driving under the influence [30]*30in violation of Florida Statutes § 316.1930(l)(a), (b). Gibbons refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. He appeals the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss or in the alternative motion to suppress on the grounds the arresting officer was not in fresh pursuit.

Officer Joshua Decker of the Juno Beach Police Department observed Gibbons weaving within the lane of travel, outside the lane onto the shoulder of the road, and in the opposite direction over the center dividing lane. Juno Beach Police Department policy requires an officer to run a check on a vehicle prior to initiating a stop to determine if the vehicle is stolen. While awaiting the results of the check, Appellant and the officer drove out of Juno Beach and into the jurisdiction of the Town of Jupiter.

We affirm in that the reason for the hesitation was reasonable. We decline, however, to set forth any guidelines because reasonableness is an elementary principal of law.

AFFIRMED. STEWART, COLBATH and LUPO, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Daniel Gibbons was cited with driving under the influence [30]*30in violation of Florida Statutes § 316.1930(l)(a), (b). Gibbons refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. He appeals the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss or in the alternative motion to suppress on the grounds the arresting officer was not in fresh pursuit.

Officer Joshua Decker of the Juno Beach Police Department observed Gibbons weaving within the lane of travel, outside the lane onto the shoulder of the road, and in the opposite direction over the center dividing lane. Juno Beach Police Department policy requires an officer to run a check on a vehicle prior to initiating a stop to determine if the vehicle is stolen. While awaiting the results of the check, Appellant and the officer drove out of Juno Beach and into the jurisdiction of the Town of Jupiter.

We affirm in that the reason for the hesitation was reasonable. We decline, however, to set forth any guidelines because reasonableness is an elementary principal of law.

AFFIRMED. STEWART, COLBATH and LUPO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Fla. Supp. 2d 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbons-v-state-flacirct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack