|
In the case of State of Florida v. Bowers, the Supreme Court of the State of Florida resolved a conflict with decisions of the 2nd and 4th Districts concerning the application of the fellow officer rule to testimony during a hearing on a motion to suppress where defendant challenged the legality of the initial traffic stop. The Supreme Court ruled that the fellow officer rule does not allow a police officer who doesn't have primary knowledge of the events surrounding a traffic stop & wasn't personally involved in the initial investigation at the time to testify as to hearsay concerning what the initial officer who conducted the stop told him or her outside of court for purposes of proving a violation of the traffic law so as to establish the validity of the initial traffic stop. In the Bowers case, defendant filed a motion to suppress which} was granted by the circuit court, & in the case of Ferrer vs. State of Florida, the Fourth District Court upheld the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress based on very similar factual scenarios applying the fellow officer rule.  In Bowers, defendant was initially stopped by an officer for a suspected DUI. A second officer, who wasn't present at the initial traffic stop and who didn't have any personal knowledge of defendant's driving pattern, arrived at the scene, conducted a DUI investigation & arrested the defendant for the crime of and other drug/drug related offenses. At a suppression hearing concerning the stop, only the officer who performed the DUI investigation & made the arrest appeared & testified. In reviewing the fellow officer rule, the Florida Supreme Court held that the fellow officer rule permits an officer to rely on the statements of another police officer to justify the officer's conduct, but it does not allow "an officer to testify as to knowledge that another officer possessed in order to justify the other officer.s conduct." The Supreme Court of Florida agreed with the trial court in Bowers that the suppression hearing wasn't about the probable cause to conduct the DUI investigation and arrest the defendant, but concerned the probable cause to make the stop in the first place. Therefore, only the police officer who made the traffic stop could establish the basis for the probable cause of the initial traffic stop. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Second District opinion in the Bowers case, and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in the Ferrer matter. The dissent discusses Bowers not in terms of the fellow officer rule, but in terms of second-tier certiorari review given the majority opinion in Nader v. Florida DHSMV. For more information on Criminal Attorney Miami FL , Dui Attorney Miami FL and Dui Attorney Miami FL you can contact us at: The Law Offices of Rosenberg and Dye 201 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 (305)459-3286
Related Articles -
criminal lawyer miami fl, criminal attorney miami fl, dui lawyer miami fl, dui attorney miami fl, lawyer miami fl, attorney miami fl,
|
