State v. Brown

Florida Circuit Courts

State v. Brown

49 Fla. Supp. 2d 31

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedAugust 21, 1991

DocketCase No. AP 90-0085 AC (A) 02

StatusPublished

This text of 49 Fla. Supp. 2d 31 (State v. Brown) 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

State v. Brown, 49 Fla. Supp. 2d 31 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. James Curtis Brown was cited with driving under the [32]*32influence in violation of Florida Statutes §316.193 by Officer Hill of the Lake Clarke Shores Police Department. Brown filed a motion to suppress the breathalyzer test results, etc., on the grounds that the arresting officer’s attempt to stop did not take place until after defendant and the officer exited the officer’s jurisdiction.

Although Officer Hill could have stopped defendant while he was still in Lake Clarke Shores, he did not do so because department procedures require a tag check before pulling a vehicle over. We reverse in that the reason for the hesitation was reasonable. We decline to set forth any guidelines, however, because reasonableness is an elementary principle of law.

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 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.

Reversed. James Curtis Brown was cited with driving under the [32]*32influence in violation of Florida Statutes §316.193 by Officer Hill of the Lake Clarke Shores Police Department. Brown filed a motion to suppress the breathalyzer test results, etc., on the grounds that the arresting officer’s attempt to stop did not take place until after defendant and the officer exited the officer’s jurisdiction.

Although Officer Hill could have stopped defendant while he was still in Lake Clarke Shores, he did not do so because department procedures require a tag check before pulling a vehicle over. We reverse in that the reason for the hesitation was reasonable. We decline to set forth any guidelines, however, because reasonableness is an elementary principle of law.

REVERSED AND REMANDED. STEWART, COLBATH and LUPO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Fla. Supp. 2d 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-flacirct-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack