Peeples v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Peeples v. State

173 So. 3d 1123, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13006, 2015 WL 5139404

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 2, 2015

Docket2D14-1009

StatusPublished

This text of 173 So. 3d 1123 (Peeples 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

Peeples v. State, 173 So. 3d 1123, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13006, 2015 WL 5139404 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Vernon Peeples, Jr., appeals his convictions for six drug offenses. All of the *1124 charges were based on law enforcement’s discovery of drugs and paraphernalia after they stopped Mr. Peeples’ automobile for failure to maintain a single lane on a roadway in violation of section 316.089(1), Florida Statutes (2012).' The State concedes that the trial court erred in denying Mr. Peeples’ motion to suppress because the stop of his car was unauthorized-law enforcement did not have a reasonable safety concern based on Mr. Peeples’ one failure to maintain a single lane that did not endanger the deputies or anyone else. See Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“Section 316.089 is similar to section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1995), governing the use of turn signals, in that a violation does not occur in isolation, but requires evidence that the driver’s conduct created a reasonable safety concern.”). Accordingly, we reverse Mr. Peeples’ convictions and sentences and remand with directions to discharge him.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND, KELLY, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Vernon Peeples, Jr., appeals his convictions for six drug offenses. All of the *1124 charges were based on law enforcement’s discovery of drugs and paraphernalia after they stopped Mr. Peeples’ automobile for failure to maintain a single lane on a roadway in violation of section 316.089(1), Florida Statutes (2012).' The State concedes that the trial court erred in denying Mr. Peeples’ motion to suppress because the stop of his car was unauthorized-law enforcement did not have a reasonable safety concern based on Mr. Peeples’ one failure to maintain a single lane that did not endanger the deputies or anyone else. See Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“Section 316.089 is similar to section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1995), governing the use of turn signals, in that a violation does not occur in isolation, but requires evidence that the driver’s conduct created a reasonable safety concern.”). Accordingly, we reverse Mr. Peeples’ convictions and sentences and remand with directions to discharge him.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND, KELLY, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 So. 3d 1123, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13006, 2015 WL 5139404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peeples-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack