Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Crooks drove on any of the three occasions, there is no basis to state that he was outside the "practicable" lane. Even if he was briefly outside this margin of error, there is no objective evidence suggesting that Mr. Crooks failed to ascertain that his movements could be made with safety. Section 316.089 is similar to section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1995), governing the use of turn signals, in that a violation does not occur in isolation, but requires evidence that the driver's conduct created a reasonable safety concern....

...The trial court granted the motion to suppress, agreeing that the stop was illegal because no other vehicle was affected by the turn. On appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's suppression order, finding that because no other vehicle was affected by the turn, no offense occurred based upon section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1991). [1] The district court also cited conflict with Kamins as to the interpretation of section 316.155....

...A motorist was stopped for failure to make turn signals and subsequently arrested for possession of control substances. The trial court granted the motorist's motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop, based upon a determination that the stop was illegal. The trial court ruled that under section 316.155 a turn signal need only be given in the event another vehicle is affected by the movement....

...Based upon this statutory interpretation, the district court determined that the motorist violated subsection (2) by failure to signal before turning and that the officer thus made a valid stop. Id. at 868. Contrary to Kamins, we find the rule of statutory construction announced in Adams to be inapplicable in interpreting section 316.155....

...In contrast, both Kamins and Riley involved the interpretation of two subsections of the same statute. We agree with the Fifth District Court's determination that subsections (1) and (2) must be read in pari materia and that the subsections are not in conflict. Riley, 625 So.2d at 1261. Section 316.155(1) directs that a person may not turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway unless and until the turn can be made with reasonable safety. The statute further provides that the turn may only be completed "after giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided, in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement. " § 316.155(1), Fla....

...s simply given a warning for failure to use a turn signal. The two officers that stopped the vehicle testified that no other vehicle was affected by the driver's right-hand turn onto the highway. Under these circumstances, the driver did not violate section 316.155 and should not have been stopped by the officers....

...stent with this opinion. It is so ordered. GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW and KOGAN, JJ., concur. McDONALD, Senior Justice, concurs in result only with an opinion. McDONALD, Senior Justice, concurring in result only. I believe the interpretation of section 316.155 by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in State v....

...4th DCA), review denied, 626 So.2d 206 (Fla. 1993), is correct. It is obvious, however, that *509 the stop in this case was pretextual and the trial judge was therefore correct in suppressing the evidence obtained as a result of the stop. I therefore concur in result only. NOTES [1] Section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1991), which specifies when a signal is required by the operator of a vehicle on Florida's highways, provides in pertinent part: (1) No person may turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway unless and until...

...ated the taint of the gun being obtained as the result of an illegal traffic stop. The traffic stop was without legal basis In this case, the officer stopped Frierson for the failure to signal when turning and driving with a cracked taillight. Under section 316.155(1), Florida Statutes (2000), a person may not turn a vehicle "from a direct course upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving an appropriate signal ......

...As a result of the stop, the defendant was arrested for possession of marijuana. The defendant challenged the validity of the stop, contending that since no one was affected by the turn, the arresting officer had no basis to conduct a traffic stop. In holding that the stop was improper, the supreme court held that: *296 Section 316.155(1) directs that a person may not turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway unless and until the turn can be made with reasonable safety. The statute further provides that the turn may only be completed "after giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided, in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement." § 316.155(1), Fla....

...e obtained as a result of that stop must be suppressed.... The two officers that stopped the vehicle testified that no other vehicle was affected by the driver's right-hand turn onto the highway. Under these circumstances, the driver did not violate section 316.155 and should not have been stopped by the officers....

...The objective test "asks only whether any probable cause for the stop existed," making the subjective knowledge, motivation, or intention of the individual officer involved wholly irrelevant. Holland v. State, 696 So.2d 757, 759 (Fla. 1997). Appellant was stopped for violating sections 316.155 and 316.089, Florida Statutes (2005). Section 316.155 delineates the requirements for using a turn signal: (1) No person may turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giv...

...(2) A signal of intention to turn right or left must be given continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning, except that such a signal by hand or arm need not be given continuously by a bicyclist if the hand is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle. *603 § 316.155, Fla....

...Failure to signal as required by this section is a moving violation, thus giving an officer probable cause to stop a vehicle that does not signal appropriately. S.A.S. v. State, 884 So.2d 1167, 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). However, the Florida Supreme Court has held that section 316.155 requires a signal only if another vehicle would be affected by the turn....

...Crooks drove on any of the three occasions, there is no basis to state that he was outside his "practicable" lane. Even if he was briefly outside this margin of error, there is no objective evidence suggesting that Mr. Crooks failed to ascertain that his movements could be made with safety. Section 316.089 is similar to section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1995), governing the use of turn signals, in that a violation cannot occur in isolation but requires evidence that the driving pattern created a reasonable safety concern....

...e resolved in favor of the state. State v. Daniel, 665 So.2d 1040 (Fla.1995). In this instance, the state presented unrefuted testimony indicating [the defendant] made a right hand turn without signalling. [The defendant's] action was a violation of section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Bobby Bowling appeals his conviction and order of probation for possession of cocaine following the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress. The cocaine was found during a search of Mr. Bowling's car that followed a traffic stop for violation of section 316.155(3), Florida Statutes (1999)....

...Officer Kondek had followed the second car for one block; none of the three vehicles were speeding. The three vehicles came to a sudden stop, and Mr. Bowling's minivan made a left turn. The officer followed, stopped Mr. Bowling, and eventually issued a traffic citation for violating section 316.155(3), which provides: "No person may stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided herein to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear, when there is opportunity to give such signal." Although there was discussion and testimony at the suppression hearing as to whether the stop was valid based on a violation of section 316.155(2), failure to give a proper turn signal, the motion and the court's ruling were clearly based on Mr....

...From his position in the third vehicle, the officer was simply not able to see Mr. Bowling's brake lights. In sum, the officer was unable to show any reasonable basis for stopping Mr. Bowling's car. Accordingly, the motion to suppress should have been granted. Mr. Bowling did not violate section 316.155(3) and should not have been stopped by the officer....

...attention to the other traffic. I didn't see *352 him run anyone off the road." No traffic citation was issued in this case. Although the State could have relied on this weak evidence to argue that the stop was a valid traffic stop for violation of section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1995), it chose not to make that argument in the trial court. See State v. Everett, 671 So.2d 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (traffic stop of defendant was legally authorized and not pretextual where officer observed defendant make a right-hand turn without signaling in violation of section 316.155); cf. State v. Riley, 638 So.2d 507 (Fla.1994) (if no other vehicle is affected by a turn from the highway, then a signal is not required by section 316.155)....

...The State argues the trial court erred in finding that Kamins' traffic stop was illegal and in suppressing the evidence obtained during the stop. We agree and reverse. A police officer stopped Kamins' vehicle after Kamins made two left turns without proper turn signals in violation of section 316.155(2), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...During the traffic stop, the police officer observed marijuana, cocaine, and an open beer bottle in plain view. Kamins was arrested, and a subsequent search revealed additional cocaine and large sums of cash. We do not agree with the trial court that section 316.155(2) must be read in conjunction with section 316.155(1) and that a signal of intention to turn right or left need only be given in the event another vehicle may be affected by the movement. The specific language and requirements of subsection (2) controls over the general provision *868 of subsection (1). Adams v. Culver, 111 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1959). Because the police officer observed a violation of section 316.155(2), the police officer acted in accordance with the law and made a valid stop....

...ial court that the vehicle’s turn was lawful because it “was done in a safe manner and did not affect the flow of traffic.” This argument appears to have three sources: First, the failure to signal a turn can constitute a traffic offense under section 316.155 if the turn affects traffic....

...the trial court that the vehicle's turn was lawful because it "was done in a safe manner and did not affect the flow of traffic." This argument appears to have three sources: First, the failure to signal a turn can constitute a traffic offense under section 316.155 if the turn affects traffic....

...The arresting officers were authorized to stop Osuji based upon section 316.074(2), Florida Statutes (2000) ("No person shall drive any vehicle from a roadway to another roadway to avoid obeying the indicated traffic control indicated by such traffic control device." [2] ) and section 316.155 (requiring use of turn signal)....

...did not have a reasonable safety concern based on Mr. Peeples' one failure to maintain a single lane that did not endanger the deputies or anyone else. See Crooks v. State, 710 So. 2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) ("Section 316.089 is similar to section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1995), governing the use of turn signals, in that a violation does not occur in isolation, but requires evidence that the driver's conduct created a reasonable safety concern."). Accordingly, we reverse Mr....

...During this stop, the officer seized a small container of marijuana and a marijuana pipe that were the subject of the motion to suppress. S.A.S. was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. Notably, the officer did not issue a traffic citation. Section 316.155, Florida Statutes (2003), delineates the requirements for using a turn signal: (1) No person may turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after...

...than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning, except that such a signal by hand or arm need not be given continuously by a bicyclist if the hand is needed in the control or operation of the bicycle. Failure to signal as required by section 316.155 is a moving violation, thus giving an officer probable cause to stop a vehicle that does not signal appropriately. The Florida Supreme Court has interpreted section 316.155 to require a signal only when another vehicle will be affected *1169 by the turn....

...Because no other vehicle was affected, the trial court determined the stop was illegal and suppressed the evidence obtained during the stop. The Fifth District affirmed, and the Florida Supreme Court agreed with the Fifth District’s reasoning, explaining that subsections (1) and (2) of section 316.155 must be read in pari materia to require a signal only when another vehicle “is affected by a turn from the highway.” Id. (emphasis added); accord State v. Mae, 706 So.2d 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Frierson v. State, 851 So.2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (comparing section 316.155 with the statute requiring vehicles to stay within their proper lanes and interpreting both as requiring “evidence that the driver’s conduct created a reasonable safety concern” before a vehicle may be stopped)....

...t brief moment before the decision to use the signal is made. Instead, there must actually be other vehicles affected by the turn. Language from Crooks and Frierson interpreting Riley supports this conclusion. Crooks, 710 So.2d at 1043 (interpreting section 316.155 as requiring “evidence that the driver’s conduct created a reasonable safety concern” before a vehicle may be stopped); Frierson, 851 So.2d at 296 (recognizing Crooks ’ interpretation of Riley to this effect)....

history of the 1983 amendment to section 316.155: The bill amends § 316.155 to prohibit turning a vehicle

However, Riley dealt with a violation of section 316.155, Florida Statutes, and its interpretation of

...The state appeals an order of the circuit court suppressing physical evidence seized from an automobile driven by appellee Michael Bonser. We reverse. The arresting officer testified at the suppression hearing that he stopped appellee’s car after appellee made a right turn without signalling. § 316.155(2), Fla.Stat....

...The issue presented here is whether Riley should be applied retroactively to Kamins , pursuant to his motion for post-conviction relief. We conclude that Riley is not retroactive on collateral review. Kamins was stopped by a police officer because he made two left turns without using a turn signal, which allegedly violated section 316.155(2), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...should be resolved in *162 favor of the state. State v. Daniel, 665 So.2d 1040 (Fla.1995). In this instance, the state presented unrefuted testimony indicating Everett made a right hand turn without sig-nalling. Everett’s action was a violation of section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...The subsequent search was incident to a lawful arrest, and the evidence seized should not have been suppressed. The subsequent discovery that Everett’s vehicle was stolen is also admissible. We find the state met its burden by showing the stop was authorized because Everett violated section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1993)....