5D03-2479 Alejandro Yanes v. State

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D03-2479

Case Date: 05/24/2004

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2004

ALEJANDRO YANES, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D03-2479 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed May 28, 2004 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Stan Strickland, Judge. James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. TORPY, J. After his Motion to Suppress was denied, Appellant pled guilty to trafficking in the cocaine found in his vehicle. He contends that a deputy sheriff improperly stopped his vehicle, improperly detained him after the stop, and that the ensuing search of his vehicle was tainted by the improper stop and detention. We disagree and affirm. The deputy sheriff, while patrolling the Florida Turnpike, observed Appellant cross the

"fog line"1 on three occasions within a mile. Each time, the vehicle crossed the line by approximately one-half of its width. Believing that the operator might be impaired, sick or tired, the deputy stopped Appellant's vehicle. He observed that Appellant had the odor of alcohol on his breath and appeared nervous. Thereafter, the deputy summoned a drug-sniffing dog. The dog detected that drugs were in the vehicle. A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed cocaine. Appellant challenges both the initial stop and his subsequent detention. He alleges that the initial stop was improper because crossing the fog line three times, without endangering anyone, neither violates the single lane statute nor otherwise provides reasonable suspicion to justify a police stop. Appellant further contends that, after the initial stop, the deputy delayed the detention for an unreasonable length of time to give the drug-sniffing dog time to arrive and sniff Appellant's car. In support of his first contention, Appellant relies on Jordan v. State, 831 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), and Crooks v. State, 710 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). However, Jordan and Crooks are distinguished. The relevant statute relating to the operation of a vehicle within a lane states in pertinent part as follows: A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.

Download 5D03-2479 Alejandro Yanes v. State.pdf