STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
TOMESHA MARIE HOWARD, 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 held that a stop for a cracked windshield is permissible only if the crack renders the vehicle unsafe and endangers persons or property.
The State appealed an order granting the defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The trial court's ruling was initially based on a prior appellate de…
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.
PER CURIAM.
The State of Florida appealed the trial court’s order granting Appellee, Tomesha Howard’s, motion to suppress. Because the trial court based its ruling largely on Hilton v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1475 (Fla. 2d DCA June 18, 2004) (.Hilton I), we reversed the order and remanded with instructions to the trial court to deny the motion to suppress on the authority of Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (en banc) (Hilton II); and we certified direct conflict with State v. Burke, 902 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). See Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(vi); State v. Howard, 909 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Florida decided Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla.2007), in which the court determined that the language in section 316.610(1) Florida Statutes (2001), authorizing vehicle stops for equipment that is “not in proper adjustment or repair” does not include windshield cracks. See id. at 292. “Thus, a stop for a cracked windshield is permissible only where an officer reasonably believes that the crack renders the vehicle ‘in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person or property.’” Id. The court quashed the Second District Court’s en banc decision, Hilton II, and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion. See Hilton, 961 So. 2d at 300.
Upon discretionary review by the Supreme Court of Florida, our decision was quashed pursuant to Hilton, 961 So. 2d at 284, and remanded to our court. Accordingly, we set aside our original opinion in Howard, 909 So. 2d at 390, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with Hilton, 961 So. 2d at 284.
BROWNING, C.J., KAHN and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.E.M. v. State, 985 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…AM. This case is on remand from the Florida Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla.2007). See D.E.M. v. State, 979 So. 2d 954 (Fla.2008), quashing 916 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). As in State v. Howard, 983 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), we think it appropriate also to remand the case to the trial court for further consideration consistent with Hilton, 961 So. 2d at 284. Remanded.…
-
State v. Perez-Garcia, 987 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…his case is on remand from the Florida Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla.2007). See Perez-Garcia v. State, 983 So. 2d 578 (Fla.2008), quashing 917 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). As in State v. Howard, 983 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), and D.E.M. v. State, 985 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), we think it appropriate also to remand the case to the trial court for further consideration consistent with Hilton, 961 So. 2d at 284. Remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Tristan Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2007)
- Tristan Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- State v. Burke, 902 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- State v. Tomesha Marie Howard, 909 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)