Tackett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tackett v. State

745 So. 2d 477, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15431, 1999 WL 1043952

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 19, 1999

DocketNo. 99-232

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 745 So. 2d 477 (Tackett 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

Tackett v. State, 745 So. 2d 477, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15431, 1999 WL 1043952 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ANTOON, C.J.

Lloyd Tackett appeals his conviction for trafficking in cocaine¹ arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Mr. Tackett maintains that he was subjected to an illegal stop and search. The evidence submitted during the suppression hearing demonstrated that Mr. Tackett was pulled over on the highway after the arresting officer observed that his tail lamp was inoperable. From the testimony presented, the trial court concluded that the tail light on Mr. Tackett’s vehicle failed to illuminate the license plate as required by section 316.221(2) of the Florida Statutes (1997), and as a result, the stop of the vehicle was legal. See State v. Snead, 707 So.2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The trial court also concluded that, following the stop, Mr. Tackett volun[478]*478tarily consented to the arresting officer’s request to search his vehicle. These conclusions involve findings of fact and determinations of credibility which must not be disturbed on appeal. See Franklin v. State, 718 So.2d 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.

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

ANTOON, C.J.

Lloyd Tackett appeals his conviction for trafficking in cocaine¹ arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Mr. Tackett maintains that he was subjected to an illegal stop and search. The evidence submitted during the suppression hearing demonstrated that Mr. Tackett was pulled over on the highway after the arresting officer observed that his tail lamp was inoperable. From the testimony presented, the trial court concluded that the tail light on Mr. Tackett’s vehicle failed to illuminate the license plate as required by section 316.221(2) of the Florida Statutes (1997), and as a result, the stop of the vehicle was legal. See State v. Snead, 707 So.2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The trial court also concluded that, following the stop, Mr. Tackett volun[478]*478tarily consented to the arresting officer’s request to search his vehicle. These conclusions involve findings of fact and determinations of credibility which must not be disturbed on appeal. See Franklin v. State, 718 So.2d 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

745 So. 2d 477, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15431, 1999 WL 1043952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tackett-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack