TT00-005796-XX - Chippas v. State

IN THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR HARDEE, HIGHLANDS
AND POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA

Appeal No.: DD-61

County Case No.: TT00-005796-XX

WILLIAM V. CHIPPAS,

Appellant,

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee,

____________________________

OPINION OF THE COURT

This is an appeal from the county court of Polk County, Judge Karla F. Wright presiding. The Appellant was charged with Driving Under The Influence and filed a motion to suppress. The court denied the motion to suppress and Appellant appeals the county court ruling. This court has jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c). The ruling of the county court is AFFIRMED.

On November 15, 2000, Polk County Sheriffs Deputy April Lacy observed the Appellant making a wide right turn onto the center lane of Highway 17, a three-lane highway, and then pulling into the right lane. Before being observed by Deputy Lacy, the Appellant was overheard inside a convenience store by Deputy Kenneth Turner where the Appellant appeared incoherent. Deputy Turner also observed Appellant urinating on the gas pumps. After Appellant pulled onto Highway 17, Deputy Turner followed him along with Deputy Lacy who was driving parallel with him. Deputy Lacy testified that she noticed Appellant weaving within his lane for approximately one mile and based on her observations, she believed that Appellant was impaired. Similarly, Deputy Turner testified that Appellant made an extremely wide turn into the middle lane and then into the right lane. Deputy Turner also observed the Appellant drifting from side to side within his lane. Believing that Appellant was under the influence, Deputy Turner initiated a traffic stop and Deputy Lacy placed Appellant under arrest for driving under the influence.

The court's decision turns on the following issues: 1) whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant's motion to suppress; and 2) whether the traffic stop was an illegal search in violation of the Appellant's Fourth Amendment rights.

Ruling of trial court on motion to suppress comes to reviewing court clothed with presumption of correctness, and reviewing court will interpret evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in manner most favorable to sustaining trial court's ruling. McNamara v. State, 357 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1978).

Regarding the first issue, the county court correctly concluded that based upon Deputy Lacy and Deputy Turner's observations, the deputy had the requisite founded suspicion to warrant a traffic stop. Appellant's wide turn, rapid lane switch and continual swerving was sufficient cause for the deputies to believe that he was impaired. State v. Roberts, 732 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1999), State v. Carillo, 506 So.2d 495 (Fla. 5^th DCA 1987), State v. Davidson, 744 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 2^nd DCA 1999).

Further, the traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer's reasons for a stop are immaterial and the stop is reasonable when the officer has probable cause to believe that traffic violation occurred; test is whether an officer could have stopped the vehicle for a traffic infraction. Petrel v. State, 675 So.2d 1049 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1996). Based on Appellant's wide turn, he could have been given a citation for violating Fla. Stat. 316.151(1)(a) and thereby justifying the traffic stop. Therefore, Appellant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the ruling of the county court is AFFIRMED.

ORDERED April 2002.

CHARLES B. CURRY, Chief Judge