Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...test with reference thereto as may be appropriate. Section 316.610, however, must be read in conjunction with those statutes which delineate the specific equipment requirements for vehicles. See, e.g., § 316.220, Fla. Stat. (1987) (headlamps); id. § 316.221 (taillamps); id. § 316.222 (stop lamps and turn signals); id. § 316.2225 (additional equipment required on certain vehicles). The only such statute arguably applicable in the present case is section 316.221(1), which specifies the requirements for a vehicle's taillights: Every motor vehicle ......

...andard, but rather by an objective one. Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22, 88 S.Ct. at 1879-1880. Law enforcement officers are charged with knowledge of the law. A reasonable officer would have known the statutory requirements for taillights as prescribed by section 316.221....

...necessary reasonable suspicion to justify a further detention.”), but that case is not before us. III. CONCLUSION In accordance with the foregoing, we affirm the district court order denying Appellant Holloman’s motion to suppress. AFFIRMED. 1 . Section 316.221(2) of the Florida Uniform Control Law requires a tail lamp or separate lamp to illuminate the rear registration plate and render it clearly legible from a distance of fifty feet to the rear.

...If the majority were to abide by this instruction, it could not conclude that the officers lawfully stopped Hilton. At issue in Doctor was an officer's stop of a vehicle because it had a cracked tail-light. As the supreme court noted, section *163 316.221(1) specified the requirements for taillights: Every motor vehicle ......

...In contrast, the majority's five other examples of traffic stops based on equipment violations all derived from specific requirements in chapter 316. Thus, in Smith, 687 So.2d at 877, the defendant was stopped because her tag light was too dim to make the tag clearly legible for 50 feet, as required by section 316.221(2). Snead, 707 So.2d at 770, involved an inoperable taillight in violation of section 316.221, which requires every vehicle to have two taillights visible for 1,000 feet, and inoperable brake lights contrary to section 316.222, which requires two brake lights visible for 300 feet....

...er." § 901.15(5), Fla. Stat. (2000). Section 316.610, Florida Statutes (2000) prohibits the driving of a vehicle that "is not at all times equipped with such lamps and other equipment in proper condition and adjustment as required in this chapter." Section 316.221(1), Florida Statutes (2000) requires a motor vehicle to be equipped with "at least two taillamps mounted on the rear, which, when lighted......

...First, we determine that the deputy's stopping of this car was legally valid. The evidence clearly demonstrated a routine traffic stop for a violation of a traffic law requiring a motor vehicle to have two operative, illuminated taillamps during darkness. Joseph v. State, 588 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); § 316.221, Fla....

...[1] Upon search, a large quantity of cocaine was found in the Toyota. The appellants contend that the traffic stop was pretextual and that their detention at the scene, which allowed time for the dog to sniff out contraband, was illegal. As to the first issue, the stop was not pretextual. Section 316.221, Florida Statutes (1987), requires that a motor vehicle have two taillights emitting a red light....

...retextual. In Kehoe v. State, 521 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 1988), the supreme court held that the state must show that, under the facts and circumstances, a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle absent an additional invalid purpose. Id. at 1097. Section 316.221, Florida Statutes (1987), requires a motor vehicle to have two taillights mounted on the rear which when lighted shall emit a red light....

...olations. The defendant was the only motorist to be cited for an equipment violation. 7. The defendant was stopped by the interdiction unit on the night of June 29, 1995, at about 10:30 p.m. for not having a tag light in violation of Florida Statute § 316.221(2)....

...infractions. Of those stopped only two (2) were arrested for drug offenses. There is no competent evidence to indicate that the officers made the stop of Holloman on any basis other than the traffic violation. Holloman's violation of Florida Statute § 316.221(2), having no tag light, is objectively determinable....

...In the instant case, the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress the seized evidence because the court held that the evidence may have been properly seized pursuant to a valid stop for a traffic infraction, an inoperable tail light. However, section 316.221, Florida Statutes (1985), provides in pertinent part: (1) Every motor vehicle ......

...ghts to be on prior to sunset. Therefore, he argued that the stop was invalid, and that the cocaine seized as a result of the stop and subsequent search is inadmissible. Kayes v. State, 409 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). However, appellant overlooks section 316.221(2), Florida Statutes (1987) which provides in part: Any taillamp or taillamps, together with any separate lamp or lamps for illuminating the rear registration plate, shall be so wired as to be lighted whenever the headlamps or auxiliary driving lamps are lighted....

...Under the above statutes, law enforcement has the authority to stop a vehicle requiring proper repair or not equipped as required by law. Based on the trial court's factual findings, the officer had reasonable cause to stop the vehicle based on a founded suspicion that it was in violation of section 316.221(1) [3] regarding taillamps, which provides, in pertinent part: *71 Every motor 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 white light to shine through the tape. Based upon the trial court's factual findings, the officer was reasonable in his belief that the vehicle was not in compliance with section 316.221(1) and could be stopped for inspection pursuant to 316.610(1), (2)....

...We conclude that the officer lawfully stopped Schuck's car based on the fact that the broken and not properly repaired red lens covering the taillight contained a hole the size of a fist, causing the taillamp to emit white light. The equipment violation was a noncriminal traffic infraction. See § 316.221(1)....

...officers." Ornelas v. U.S., 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). An appellate court accords "great deference" to a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress. Connor v. State, 803 So.2d 598, 605 (Fla.2001). [3] A violation of section 316.221 is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in chapter 318. See § 316.221(3), Fla....

...Diaz's temporary tag, the sheriff's deputy could lawfully make personal contact with Mr. Diaz only to explain to him the reason for the initial stop."); State v. Reed, 712 So.2d 458, 460 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Deputy Gould's observation that Defendant's taillamp was not operating justified the traffic stop under section 316.221(2), and whether or not the deputy further inspected the vehicle after stopping Defendant, it was lawful for him to approach Defendant. REVERSED and REMANDED. THOMPSON and MONACO, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 316.221, Florida Statutes (2005) provides: (2) Either a taillamp or a separate lamp shall be so constructed and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate and render it clearly legible from a distance of 50 feet to the rear....

...s occurred." Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). Police stopped Langello's car because only one of two lights illuminating his tag was operational. The officer who stopped Langello believed this violated section 316.221(2), Florida Statutes (2004). Section 316.221(2) requires vehicles to be equipped with "either a taillamp or a separate lamp" that is "placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate and render it clearly legible from a distance of 50 feet to the rear." The...

...Here, as in Gordon, the officer's belief that there was an equipment violation because only one tag light was working was a mistake of law which did not establish probable cause to stop Langello's car. The State contends that even if Langello did not violate section 316.221(2), the stop was proper under section 316.610(1), Florida Statutes (2004)....

...ed in Kehoe v. State, 521 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 1988). Under Kehoe, the stop is proper if a reasonable officer would have stopped the vehicle absent an additional invalid purpose. Id. at 1097. Here, after the stop was made because of a traffic violation (section 316.221(2), Florida Statutes (1987)), and during the time a citation was being written for that violation, Deputy Graham received information which gave him probable cause to arrest appellee and to conduct a search incident to that arrest....

...ent or repair' provision of subsection *406 (1)"; because section 316.2952, Florida Statutes (2001), did not require a windshield free from cracks, a vehicle stop for a windshield crack was authorized only if it posed a safety hazard. Id. Similarly, section 316.221(1), Florida Statutes (2002), does not require taillamps free from cracks or breaks: Every motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, and pole trailer, and any other vehicle which is being drawn at the end of a combination of vehicles, shall...

...n license plate tag light was not illuminating the license plate. Davison argues that the traffic stop was unconstitutional on several grounds, only one of which merits discussion. He contends that because the officer was mistaken in his belief that section 316.221(2), Florida Statutes (2007), required the tag to be legible from a distance of 100 feet, no traffic violation occurred, thus the officer did not have a valid basis for a traffic stop....

...United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); Langello v. State, 970 So.2d 491 (Fla. 2d *35 DCA 2007). The appellant relies on Langello in support of his contention that so long as the rear registration tag was clearly legible from 50 feet, as section 316.221, Florida Statutes (2007), requires, the officer did not have probable cause to initiate a traffic stop because the appellant was not violating the statute....

...In any event, the present case is distinguishable from Langello. In that case, police officers stopped the defendant's vehicle because only one of the two tag lights was operational and the officers erroneously believed that having one light out was a violation of section 316.221(2), Florida Statutes....

...The trial court found that "the officer's belief that there was an equipment violation because only one tag light was working was a mistake of law which did not establish probable cause to stop Langello's car." Here, Davison was stopped by police on that night because Davison's tag light was not illuminated "at all." Section 316.221(2), Florida Statutes, requires that "either a taillamp or separate lamp shall be ....

...pon the absence of any illumination of the tag as a basis for the traffic stop. A police officer may conduct a traffic stop for a violation of the tag light requirement. § 316.610, Fla. Stat. (2007). Even though the officer mistakenly believed that section 316.221(2), Florida Statutes (2007), required Davison's tag to be clearly legible from 100 feet, the officer nonetheless had probable cause to initiate the traffic stop because the tag was not illuminated at all....

...his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm the denial of the motion to suppress. See State v. Miller, 565 So.2d 886 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (upholding traffic stop based on driving at night with an inoperable tag light); § 316.221(2), Fla....

...Section 901.151(5) speaks in terms of "probable cause,” however, courts have suggested that "probable cause” in this context is akin to "reasonable suspicion” or a "reasonable belief” that the person is armed. See Smith v. State, 925 So.2d 465, 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); State v. Webb, 398 So.2d 820, 824 (Fla.1981). . Section 316.221 governs taillamps in motor vehicles and provides, in relevant part: (2) Either a taillamp or a separate lamp shall be so constructed and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate and render it clearly legible from a distance of 50 feet to the rear .... [and] shall be so wired as to be lighted whenever the headlamps or auxiliary driving lamps are lighted. (3) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a non-moving violation.... § 316.221(2)-(3), Fla....

...s related to the safety requirements of motor vehicles. See, e.g., § 316.156 (signal lamps), § 316.215 (vehicles in unsafe condition), § 316.216 (approval of lighting devices), § 316.217 (when lighted lamps are required), § 316.220 (headlamps), § 316.221 (tail-lamps), § 316.222 (stop lamps and turn signals), § 316.2395 (headlamps), § 316.2396 (driving lamps), § 316.241 (sale or use of approved lamps or equipment), § 316.251 (maximum bumper height), § 316.261 (brake equipment), § 316...

...Tackett was pulled over on the highway after the arresting officer observed that his tail lamp was inoperable. From the testimony presented, the trial court concluded that the tail light on Mr. Tackett’s vehicle failed to illuminate the license plate as required by section 316.221(2) of the Florida Statutes (1997), and as a result, the stop of the vehicle was legal....

...possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Holloman pled not guilty and sought suppression of any evidence derived from the nonconsensual search of his vehicle. 1 Section 316.221(2) of the Florida Uniform Control Law requires a tail lamp or separate lamp to illuminate the rear registration plate and render it clearly legible from a distance of fifty feet to the rear. The district judge referred the motion to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation....

...Most citizens would appreciate knowing that one light was out. We need not determine this question. Assuming that the police officer was then acting properly, he later went too far without legal cause. Reversed and remanded. HOBSON and GRIMES, JJ., concur. . Fla.Stat. § 316.221, F.S.A., (1971)....

...s have suggested that "probable cause" in this context is akin to "reasonable suspicion" or a "reasonable belief" that the person is armed. See Smith v. State, 925 So.2d 465, 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); State v. Webb, 398 So.2d 820, 824 (Fla.1981). [2] Section 316.221 governs taillamps in motor vehicles and provides, in relevant part: (2) Either a taillamp or a separate lamp shall be so constructed and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate and render it clearly legible from a distance of 50 feet to the rear.... [and] shall be so wired as to be lighted whenever the headlamps or auxiliary driving lamps are lighted. (3) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation.... § 316.221(2)-(3), Fla....