Crooks v. State, 710 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Crooks v. State, 710 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“section 316.089 is similar to section 316.155, florida statutes (1995), governing the use of turn signals, in that a violation does not occur in isolation, but requires evidence that the driver's conduct created a reasonable safety concern.”
50 citation events (46 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State of Missouri v. Anthony James Smith (mo, 2020-01-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State of Missouri v. Anthony James Smith
Mo. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
violation does not occur in isolation, but requires evidence that the driver's conduct created a reasonable safety concern
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Peeples v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
section 316.089 is similar to section 316.155, florida statutes (1995), governing the use of turn signals, in that a violation does not occur in isolation, but requires evidence that the driver's conduct created a reasonable safety concern.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Pegram
N.C. Ct. App. · 2015 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
violation does not occur in isolation, but requires evidence that the driver's conduct created a reasonable safety concern.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Marx (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Kan. · 2009 · signal: see, e.g. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a violation does not occur in isolation, but requires evidence that the driver s conduct created a reasonable safety concern
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Turner (Slip Opinion)
Ohio · 2020 · confidence medium
See People v. Mueller, 2018 IL App (2d) 170863 , 127 N.E.3d 861, ¶ 28 (officer did not have reasonable suspicion that defendant had violated the statute for improper lane usage when vehicle’s tires touched the fog line and yellow center line three times at night on curved road); United States v. Warfield, 727 Fed.Appx. 182 , 186 (6th Cir.2018) (officer lacked probable cause to stop defendant’s vehicle, as merely touching a lane line is not a violation of Ohio’s marked-lanes statute); State v. Neal, 159 Idaho 439, 447 , 362 P.3d 514 (2015) (twice driving onto but not across fog line does…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Tennessee v. Linzey Danielle Smith
Tenn. · 2016 · confidence medium
We recognize that other courts, in effect, have combined the two contingencies of their jurisdiction’s version of Section 123(1) and concluded that a violation oc7 curs only when there is proof that the motorist’s lane excursion created-some level of danger. 9 See, e.g., United States v, *406 Delgado-Hernandez, 283 Fed.Appx. 493, 499 (9th Cir.2008) (holding that, when evaluating whether a motorist’s driving violated Nevada’s version of Section 123(1), courts should consider “whether, under the circumstances presented, the driver’s conduct did threaten, or could be reasonably constr…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Tennessee v. Linzey Danielle Smith
Tenn. · 2016 · confidence medium
Stat. § 484.305 (1))); Crooks v. State, 710 So. 2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Nathan David Neal (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Idaho Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
See also McBroom, 39 P.3d at 229 (holding that a driver does not violate the statute when he responds to “an apparent hazard” or when he has “some other valid reason for leaving his lane”); Crooks v. State, 710 So. 2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Regis
N.J. · 2011 · confidence medium
See State v. Tague, 676 N.W.2d 197, 203 (Iowa 2004) (holding that violation of Iowa Code Ann. § 321.306 does not occur “unless the driver changes lanes before the driver ascertains that he or she could make such movement with safety”); Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fl.Ct.App.1998) (holding that violation of Fl.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Wolfer
N.D. · 2010 · confidence medium
Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1998); Rowe v. State, 363 Md. 424 , 769 A.2d 879, 889 (2001); Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d 867, 871 (Tex.Ct.App.1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Galindo v. State
Ala. Crim. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
See, e.g., State v. Abeln, 136 S.W.3d 803 (Mo.Ct.App.2004); Rowe v. State, 363 Md. 424 , 769 A.2d 879, 883-89 (2001); Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1042-43 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998); State v. Lafferty, 291 Mont. 157 , 967 P.2d 363, 365-66 (1998); Brown v. State, 188 Ga.App. 184 , 372 S.E.2d 514 , 515-16 (1988); Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d 867 (Tex.Ct.App.1998); State v. Tarvin, 972 S.W.2d 910, 911-12 (Tex.Ct.App.1998); Corbin v. State, 33 S.W.3d 90 (Tex.Ct.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) S.A.S. v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Crooks, 710 So.2d at 1043 (interpreting section 316.155 as requiring “evidence that the driver’s conduct created a reasonable safety concern” before a vehicle may be stopped); Frierson, 851 So.2d at 296 (recognizing Crooks ’ interpretation of Riley to this effect).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Abeln (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Rowe v. State, 363 Md. 424 , 769 A.2d 879, 883-89 (2001); Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1042-43 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998); State v. Lafferty, 291 Mont. 157 , 967 P.2d 363, 365-66 (1998); Brown v. State, 188 Ga.App. 184 , 372 S.E.2d 514 , 515-16 (1988); State v. Tarvin, 972 S.W.2d 910, 911-12 (Tex.App.1998); U.S. v. Armstrong, No. 3:01-CR-141-D, 2001 U.S. Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Tague
Iowa · 2004 · confidence medium
See United States v. Freeman, 209 F.3d 464, 466-67 (6th Cir.2000) (holding the mere passage of defendants vehicle across the line separating the emergency lane of a highway from the right lane of travel did not constitute probable cause that defendant violated the unsafe lane change provision of Tennessee law); United States v. Gregory, 79 F.3d 973, 978 (10th Cir.1996) (holding an isolated incident of a vehicle crossing into emergency lane of roadway did not constitute probable cause that defendant violated the unsafe lane change provision of Utah law); State v. Lafferty, 291 Mont. 157 , 967 P…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Livingston
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Id.-, see also Rowe v. Maryland, 363 Md. 424 , 769 A.2d 879, 883-89 (Spec.App.2001) (momentary crossing the shoulder line twice not a violation of statute which required vehicle to stay within lane “ ‘as nearly as practicable’ ”), quoting Md.Code Ann. § 21-309(b); Crooks v. Florida, 710 So.2d 1041, 1042-43 (Fla.Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Arizona v. Maryann Livingston
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Code Ann. § 21- 309(b); Crooks v. Florida, 710 So. 2d 1041, 1042-43 (Fla. Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Edwards v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
For example, the Court cited cases involving multiple crossings onto or over the edge line of the slow, far right traffic lane (see, e.g., Montana v. Lafferty, 291 Mont. 157, 162-63 , 967 P.2d 363 (1998)); crossing of a lane dividing line into a lane of traffic proceeding in the same direction, when there was no indication that it was unsafe or dangerous (see, e.g., Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d at 871 ); multiple or single crossings of the edge line into the emergency or shoulder area, without any indication of other cars in the vicinity (see, e.g., United States v. Gregory, 79 F.3d at 978 ;…
cited Cited "see" Frierson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
discussed Cited "see" Rowe v. State
Md. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fla.App.1998): Montana v. Lafferty, 291 Mont. 157, 162-63 , 967 P.2d 363, 366 (1998); State v. Cerny, 28 S.W.3d 796, 800-01 (Tex.App.2000); Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d 867, 871 (Tex.App.1998).
cited Cited "see" Bender v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." MELISSA PETERSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Crooks, 710 So. 2d at 1043 (explaining that a violation of section 316.089 "does not occur in isolation, but requires evidence that the driver's conduct created a reasonable safety concern" and thus reversing appellant's conviction where there was no evidence how far into the right-hand emergency lane appellant drove on three occasions and where there was no objective evidence that appellant failed to ascertain that his movements could be made with safety)3; Hurd, 958 So. 2d at 603 ("[T]he failure to maintain a single lane alone cannot establish probable cause when the action is don…
cited Cited "see, e.g." State Of Washington v. Donald Kinsell Jones
Wash. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Transp. § 21-309(b)))); see also Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1042-43 (Fla. Dist.
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Jones
Wash. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Code Ann., Transe § 21-309 (b)))); see also Crooks v. State, 710 So. 2d 1041, 1042-43 (Fla. Dist.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Jones (2×)
D. Kan. · 2007 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041, 1043 (Fla.App. 2 Dist.1998); State v. Tague, 676 N.W.2d 197, 203 (Iowa 2004); Rowe v. State, 363 Md. 424 , 769 A.2d 879, 885 (2001) State v. McBroom, 179 Or.App. 120 , 39 P.3d 226, 229 (Or.App.2002); Hernandez v. State, 983 S.W.2d 867, 871 (Tex.App.1998) 13 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hurd v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (no violation where evidence showed driving did not place any other vehicles in danger); Jordan v. State, 831 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Kindle
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Crooks v. State, 710 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Jordan v. State, 707 So.2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), rev. dismissed, 717 So.2d 538 (Fla.1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Garnet CROOKS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
97-03338.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
May 27, 1998.
710 So. 2d 1041
Altenbernd.
Cited by 39 opinions  |  Published

[*1042] Carl H. Lida of Law Offices of Carl H. Lida, P.A., Plantation, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Patricia E. Davenport and Johnny T. Salgado, Assistant Attorneys General, Tampa, for Appellee.

ALTENBERND, Acting Chief Judge.

Garnet Crooks appeals his conviction and order of probation for possession of marijuana following the denial of his dispositive motion to suppress. The marijuana was found during an allegedly consensual search of Mr. Crooks' car, following a traffic stop for violation of section 316.089(1), Florida Statutes (1995). We reverse because the arresting deputy sheriff had no objective basis to stop this vehicle. See Holland v. State, 696 So.2d 757 (Fla.1997).

On January 21, 1997, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Mr. Crooks was driving a 1993 Jeep Cherokee northbound on 1-75 in Collier County. On that afternoon, Deputy Clifford Deutsch and Trooper John Wilcox had decided to patrol the interstate in their marked cars as a two-car team. For some reason, they decided to follow Mr. Crooks' vehicle. It may be coincidental, but Mr. Crooks happens to be a 46-year-old United States citizen of Jamaican heritage who apparently wears his hair in a Rastafarian style.

As the officers followed Mr. Crooks, the trooper, traveling in the left lane, pulled up alongside Mr. Crooks' Jeep in the right lane, while the deputy followed behind Mr. Crooks at a safe distance. The deputy observed Mr. Crooks drive his car over the right-hand line on the edge of the right lane of northbound traffic. This movement was away from the trooper's car, and the trooper did not claim that this movement endangered him in any way. No testimony suggests that Mr. Crooks moved any great distance over the line into the emergency lane. The two officers continued to follow Mr. Crooks for a distance, and observed that he drifted over the right-hand line on two more occasions. No evidence was presented describing how far he drove over the line on these occasions, but it is clear that no other cars or pedestrians were near him on either occasion. Deputy Deutsch did not think that Mr. Crooks was intoxicated or otherwise impaired.

Based on these actions, Deputy Deutsch stopped Mr. Crooks for violation of section 316.089(1). Deputy Deutsch, who happens to patrol with a drug-trained canine in his car, asked Mr. Crooks if he would consent to a search; and he consented.[1] The search located a small quantity of marijuana.

Section 316.089 provides in pertinent part:
Whenever any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for[*1043] traffic, the following rules, in addition to all others, consistent herewith, shall apply:
(1) 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.

Because the record does not establish how far into the right-hand emergency lane Mr. Crooks drove on any of the three occasions, there is no basis to state that he was outside the "practicable" lane. Even if he was briefly outside this margin of error, there is no objective evidence suggesting that Mr. Crooks failed to ascertain that his movements could be made with safety. Section 316.089 is similar to section 316.155, Florida Statutes (1995), governing the use of turn signals, in that a violation does not occur in isolation, but requires evidence that the driver's conduct created a reasonable safety concern. See State v. Riley, 638 So.2d 507 (Fla. 1994). No such evidence exists in this case.

Accordingly, the motion to suppress should have been granted. We reverse the conviction and order of probation, and direct that the information be dismissed.

Reversed and remanded.

FULMER, J., and RAMSBERGER, PETER, Associate Judge, concur.

1 Deputy Deutsch testified at the suppression hearing that he asks the driver of every car that he stops whether a search may be conducted. He does not, however, carry consent-to-search forms. If this deputy is routinely stopping elderly drivers and out-of-state tourists for minor traffic offenses and then requesting the right to search their cars with his dog, there is a larger issue than the one addressed by this opinion.