Print

Email story

Comment

Letter to the editor

Police stop was unconstitutional, court says

A cracked windshield did not justify the stop that led to an arrest, the state high court rules.

By JOSE CARDENAS
Published July 6, 2007

CLEARWATER - Tristan Hilton was pulled over by two police officers five years ago because his car had a cracked windshield.

But when the Clearwater officers found 42 bags of marijuana on him, Hilton was charged with possession with intent to sell.

On Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that the stop violated Florida and federal protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Florida law justifies such a traffic stop only if a cracked windshield renders the vehicle "in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person or property," the court ruled.

Hilton had argued that the crack in the lower right side of the windshield was "barely visible" and the officers could not reasonably believe the car was unsafe.

"The Supreme Court ruling pretty much followed our reasoning of the case," said defense attorney Robert Love. "The severity of the crack ... did not obstruct any sort of view."

The Supreme Court did not dismiss the drug charges. It sent the case back to the Second District Court of Appeal.

Hilton, now 34, pleaded no contest to the drug charges but reserved a right to appeal. He was sentenced to two years and eight months in prison, and was released on probation for the drug charges plus robbery, aggravated battery and possession of a firearm.

When he violated probation, an arrest warrant was issued. Officials have not heard from him since, and he has been wanted by the Department of Corrections as an absconder since November 2006, a department spokeswoman said.

Hilton's case started when he was pulled over on Jan. 25, 2002 after officers said they noticed the crack. The officers saw what appeared to be a rifle in the back seat, according to the Supreme Court decision. When they escorted Hilton out of the car, the officers found the drugs strapped to his waist.

During pretrial hearings, Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Mark Shames denied Hilton's motion to suppress the evidence gathered after the stop, Love said.

The defense added that the weapon found turned out to be an air rifle.

The stop could have been legal if the officers had a "reasonable suspicion" that the cracked windshield made the car unsafe, justices ruled. But "the trial court made no findings and provided no conclusions with regard to whether the crack in the windshield rendered Hilton's vehicle unsafe," Chief Justice Fred Lewis wrote for the majority.

The court pointed out that when an officer was asked whether the crack would have obstructed the driver's view, the officer said: "No, not as far as I know. I don't know."

The majority opinion contrasted Hilton's stop to other cases where officers had a more clear reason to pull someone over, such as when the cracks in the windshield were up to 24 inches long. But Justice Charles T. Wells wrote in the dissenting opinion that the officers had an "objective" basis to stop Hilton. Wells noted that the Legislature gives officer the power to stop vehicles with equipment not "in proper repair."

"Courts must give great deference" to the judgment of trained officer," Wells wrote. "It would be nearly impossible to require that police make an accurate assessment of which cracks in the windshield poses a risk to safety when each car is traveling at highway speeds."

Jose Cardenas can be reached at jcardenas@sptimes.com or 445-4224.

[Last modified July 5, 2007, 23:37:14]