Background
Jester Ramos Perez was charged with trafficking in fourteen grams or more of methamphetamine. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the traffic stop leading to his arrest was unlawful.
Detective Cody Hammond testified that Perez exceeded the posted speed limit and twice drove entirely out of the left lane toward the median before returning to the lane. The trial court credited that testimony, found the stop valid, and denied suppression. Perez then pleaded guilty under an agreement that preserved his right to appeal the legally dispositive suppression ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District affirmed. Adopting the Fifth District’s interpretation in State v. Howard, the court held that a violation of section 316.089(1), Florida Statutes, does not require proof that the driver’s lane departure endangered anyone. The relevant question is whether the vehicle was driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane.
Hammond’s testimony that Perez twice drove entirely outside his lane was sufficient to establish the lane violation and justify the stop. The court also held that competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s separate finding that Perez was speeding, independently validating the stop. It certified direct conflict with the Second District’s decision in Peterson v. State, which required evidence that crossing a lane line created a reasonable safety concern.
Key Takeaways
- A stop under section 316.089(1) may be valid when a driver deviates from a lane by more than is practicable, even without evidence that anyone was endangered.
- Testimony that Perez twice drove entirely outside his lane supported denial of his motion to suppress.
- Speeding provided an independent basis for affirmance, and the court certified direct conflict with Peterson v. State.
Why It Matters
The decision establishes the Sixth District’s interpretation of Florida’s single-lane statute and rejects a safety-endangerment requirement for traffic stops based on that provision. The certified conflict gives the Florida Supreme Court a basis to resolve the disagreement between districts over when lane departures justify a stop.