RANDY SCOTT DEGROAT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress, holding that a traffic stop for operating a vehicle without headlights at night is not pretextual and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
A law enforcement officer may lawfully stop a vehicle operating on a highway at night without lighted headlights under Florida Statutes § 316.217, and any contraband in plain view may be seized.
[1] A traffic stop for operating a vehicle without headlights at night is not pretextual under the Fourth Amendment when the officer has authority to enforce traffic laws and…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was operating a motor vehicle on a public road at night without headlights and was stopped by a law enforcement officer.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Traffic Stop Justification cases and more on FLexlaw
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 the stop and seizure come to this court with a presumption of correctness.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W., COWART and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Bradford James Thompson, 622 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…e a vehicle which is not equipped with lamps in proper condition, and the statute authorizes any police officer to stop a vehicle at any time upon reasonable belief that the vehicle’s equipment is not in proper repair. In fact, in DeGroat v. State, 583 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), this court held as a matter of law that a reasonable law enforcement officer with the duty or authority to enforce traffic laws in this state should, and would, stop a vehicle moving on the highway at night without lighted headl…
Authorities Cited
- Kehoe v. State, 521 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1988)
- Monroe v. State, 543 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- State v. Gibson, 560 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)