Background
A Manatee County sheriff’s deputy observed Joshua Frederick Dunlop’s truck swerve three or four times within its lane and cross onto the shoulder another three or four times, once traveling about halfway onto the shoulder. Unsure whether Dunlop was tired or intoxicated, the deputy stopped the truck.
The State charged Dunlop with driving under the influence and failure to obey driver-license restrictions. The lower court granted Dunlop’s motion to suppress, finding that he had not driven rapidly, slowly, erratically, or aggressively and had neither interfered with traffic nor endangered the public. Relying on Second District precedent, it concluded that his movements did not supply reasonable suspicion for the stop.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. Citing Peterson v. State and Crooks v. State, the court applied its precedent that a driver’s failure to maintain a single lane does not violate section 316.089(1), Florida Statutes, unless the conduct creates a reasonable safety concern. Because the lower court found no interference with traffic or danger to others, the suppression order remained in place.
The court certified direct conflict with Ramos Perez v. State from the Sixth District and State v. Howard from the Fifth District. Chief Judge Lucas concurred only in the result, explaining that binding Second District precedent required affirmance but arguing that Crooks improperly added a safety requirement to the statute’s separate command that a vehicle remain within a single lane as nearly as practicable.
Key Takeaways
- Under controlling Second District precedent, drifting outside a lane does not by itself establish a section 316.089(1) violation; the driving must also create a reasonable safety concern.
- The court affirmed suppression because the lower court found that Dunlop’s driving neither interfered with traffic nor endangered the motoring public.
- The certified conflict highlights disagreement among Florida appellate courts over whether section 316.089(1) requires proof of endangerment.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves the Second District’s safety-concern requirement for traffic stops based on failure to maintain a single lane, while the certified conflict presents the Florida Supreme Court with a basis to resolve the differing interpretations among the district courts.
Chief Judge Lucas’s concurrence identifies the central statutory question: whether the duty to remain within a single lane “as nearly as practicable” stands independently from the statute’s separate safety requirement governing movement from a lane.