SC05-2362 – D.E.M., Etc. v. State of Florida

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Supreme Court » 2008 » SC05-2362 – D.E.M., Etc. v. State of Florida

State: Florida

Court: Supreme Court

Docket No: sc05-2362

Case Date: 04/03/2008

Plaintiff: SC05-2362 – D.E.M., Etc.

Defendant: State of Florida

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
No. SC05-2362
D.E.M., etc.,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[April 3, 2008]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review D.E.M. v. State, 916 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), in
which the Third District Court of Appeal expressly relied upon the Second District
Court of Appeal’s decision in Hilton v. State, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
(en banc), quashed, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2007).  At the time the Third District
issued its decision in D.E.M., Hilton was pending review in this Court.  We have
jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla.
1981).
We stayed proceedings in this case pending our disposition of Hilton.  See
Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2007) (quashing the Second District’s

decision in Hilton, upon which the Third District had relied in D.E.M.).  When our
decision in Hilton became final, we issued an order directing respondent to show
cause why we should not accept jurisdiction, quash the D.E.M decision, and
remand for reconsideration in light of our decision in Hilton.  Upon considering
respondent’s response and petitioner’s reply thereto, we have determined to do so.
We accordingly grant the petition for review in the present case. The
decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to the Third District
for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decision in Hilton.  Nothing in
our disposition today precludes any party from presenting any matter to the district
court of appeal, including any assertions presented to this Court in the responses to
the order to show cause.
It is so ordered.
LEWIS, C.J., and ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, and CANTERO, JJ.,
concur.
WELLS, J., dissents with an opinion, in which BELL, J, concurs.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
WELLS, J., dissenting.
I dissent to the quashing of the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in
this case.  In the State’s response to this Court’s order to show cause following the
Court’s decision in Hilton v. State, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2007), the State submitted:
- 2 -

In this case, the State presented the testimony of the officer who
stopped the vehicle.  The officer testified the car Petitioner was riding
in was stopped for having a shattered, driver’s side window which still
had loose shards of glass and which were capable of being blown
about by the wind as the vehicle picked up speed.  The shattered glass
rendered the vehicle unsafe to the motoring public as well as the
driver where the shards of glass were loose and capable of flying
within the vehicle as well as striking other motorists.
Respondent’s Response to Order to Show Cause at 2.  In view of the majority
opinion in Hilton, I believe that this Court must take this case because of the
uncertainty that opinion leaves as to how dangerous defects in a motor vehicle
must be for a traffic enforcement officer to stop the vehicle.  Surely an “objectively
reasonable” law enforcement officer should stop a vehicle with the glass damage
here described for the safety of all of us who use our streets and highways.
BELL, J., concurs.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Direct
Conflict of Decisions
Third District - Case No. 3D05-1208
(Dade County)
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Godfrey, Assistant Public
Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, Florida,
for Petitioner
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, Richard L. Polin, Bureau
Chief, and Maria T. Armas, Assistant Attorneys General, Miami, Florida,
for Respondent
- 3 -

Download sc05-2362.pdf