JAN CARLOS VALERO
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court properly denies a motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop when the stopping deputy had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
[1] A motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop requires a finding of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity on the part of the stopping officer.
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 intelligenceJan Carlo Valero was placed on probation and subsequently stopped by a deputy while driving. He was charged with driving on a suspended license as a h…
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 Habitual Traffic Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Jan Carlo Valero seeks review of an order revoking his probation based on a finding that he committed the new law violation of driving on a suspended license as a habitual traffic offender. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the deputy who stopped his vehicle did not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. For the reasons set forth in the appeal of Valero's conviction for driving on a suspended license as a habitual traffic offender, see Valero v. State, No. 2D18-912 (Fla. 2d DCA July 10, 2019), we affirm. Affirmed.
LUCAS and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.