IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

 

STATE OF FLORIDA,

 

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 56-2004-000612

vs.

 

THOMAS ROBERT SCHUCK,

 

Defendant.

 

________________________________/

 

                                     ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPRESS

 

This case came before this Court for an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s motion to suppress.  Defendant contends the stop of his vehicle by law enforcement was illegal and violated his Fourth Amendment rights, therefore the evidence seized as a result of the illegal stop is tainted and inadmissible.

                                                                 Findings of Fact

On February 4, 2004, at 8:40 p.m., Defendant’s Wife, Shana Schuck, was driving a vehicle registered[d] to Defendant and his wife.  Another female was a passenger in the front seat; Defendant and anoher male were passengers in the back seat.  Officer Eric Levasseur of the Port St. Lucie Police Department had received a BOLO from detectives that the vehicle had a broken tail light and was asked to stop the vehicle.  Officer Levasseur observed the vehicle make a turn at an intersections and got behind the vehicle.  H e noticed that the rear taillight on the driver’s side appeared to have tape over it.  He also observed some white light shining out of the area covered by the red tape.  He stopped the vehicle for a defective taillight.  As he approached the vehicle, he observed a hole the size of a fist in the red lens covering the taillight, which had red tape over the hole with some cracks allowing some light to shine through the tape.  As he approached the vehicle, he smelled the strong odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle.  He asked Ms. Schuck for her driver’s license and registration.  Ms. Schuck advised she had no registration or driver’s license to present.

Office Levasseur proceeded to issue a citation to Ms. Schuck for driving a vehicle with improper and unsafe equipment.  He asked her about the marijuana smell, at which time, Ms.Schuck, admitted she had smoked a marijuana blunt earlier.  He asker for consent to search the vehicle, and she consented to the search. He asked [the] occupants to step out of the vehicle and proceeded to search the vehicle.

On the back seat, where Defendant was sitting, Officer Levasseur found a white plastic bag, and inside the white bag he found two clear plastic bags that contained what field tested to be marijuana.  Due to the quantity of marijuana^[1], the Defendant was then arrested for Felony Possession of Marijuana and Possession with Intent to sell.

The State presented no evidence to show that the consent was not tainted by a purportedly illegal stop by law enforcement.  There was also no evidence presented to justify the stop except for the broken taillight.

                                                               LEGAL ANALYSIS

Defendant contends the caselaw from the Florida Supreme Court and the Fourth District Court of Appeal makes it clear that observing a cracked taillight which allows white light to emit from it is not justifiable grounds to stop a vehicle, despite law enforcement reliance on Sections 316.234 ^[2],  31.221 ^[3] and 316.610 ^[4], Florida Statutes.

In Doctor v. State, 596 So.2d 442 (Fla. 1992), the Supreme Court reversed the Fourth District Court of Appeal when it upheld the trial judge’s denial of a motion to suppress.  The trial judge found that the officers were justified in stopping a vehicle with a crack[ed] red lens covering a taillight, which allowed white light to shine through.  The State relied upon Section 316.610, Florida Statute[s], which authorizes an officer to stop a vehicle to inspect it when he has reasonable cause to believe that required equipment may not be in proper repair.  The Supreme Court held that Section 316.610 must be read in conjunction with Sect9in 316.221 (tail lamps), which requires that every vehicle have at least two tail lamps.  The Supreme Court reasoned that the tail lamps were working (hence the white light emitting from them), so there was no violation of the law, therefore the officer was not justified in making the stop.  The Supreme Court found the stop to be illegal and suppressed the evidence.

In 2003, the Fourth District Court of Appeal again addressed the issue of the propriety of a stop made because the red lens covering the rear tail light was cracked and allowed white light to emit from it.  In Frierson v. State, 851 So.2d 293, (Fla. 3th DCA 2003), The Fourth District Court of Appeal found the fact in that case to be similar to the facts in Doctor, and held again that an officer does not have reason to make a traffic stop just because the red lens of a tail light allows white light toe emit from it. The Fourth District Court suppressed the evidence in that case as well.

This Court is constrained to follow the holdings of the Fourth District Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.  The State has not presented evidence which would justify the stop by law enforcement in this case, and it appears that Defendant’s Fourth Amendment right against an unreasonable search and seizure was violated according to binding caselaw.

                                                                    Adjudication

Wherefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion to suppress the evidence seized by law enforcement in this case is granted.

DONE and ORDERED at Ft. Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida, on July 20, 2004

 

//s//      Burton C. Connor___________

Burton C. Conner

Circuit Court Judge

 

Copies to:

 

Jay Kirschner, Esq.

Bruce Harrison, ASA