Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Morrical
262 So. 3d 865
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Early morning, officer found respondent asleep in driver’s seat of a car with engine running and lights on; pants and underwear pulled down to knees. Backup arrived and blocked the car from leaving.
- Officer opened driver’s door, woke respondent, asked if he was alright, then asked him to exit; officer observed signs of impairment and initiated a DUI investigation.
- Respondent performed poorly on field sobriety tests, was arrested, and breath tests at the jail showed unlawful breath-alcohol level; Department suspended respondent’s license and respondent requested a formal review.
- Hearing officer affirmed the suspension, finding probable cause to believe respondent was driving or in actual physical control while impaired and that the officer was performing a community caretaking function when opening the door.
- Circuit court granted respondent’s petition for certiorari, quashed the hearing officer’s decision, holding the initial encounter was an investigatory stop without reasonable suspicion (citing Popple and Danielewicz) and that the community-caretaking exception was not supported by competent substantial evidence.
- Department sought second-tier certiorari review; this court denied the petition because the circuit court’s decision did not constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law or a miscarriage of justice under the narrow second-tier standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer’s initial contact was a lawful investigatory stop requiring reasonable suspicion | Officer (Department) contended facts (engine running, lights on, occupant asleep) supported reasonable suspicion to briefly detain and investigate for DUI | Circuit court: facts insufficient under Popple and Danielewicz to establish a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity | Circuit court found no competent substantial evidence of reasonable suspicion; decision left intact on second-tier review (no miscarriage of justice) |
| Whether officer’s conduct fit the community‑caretaking/welfare‑check exception | Department argued opening the door and welfare inquiry were community caretaking to ensure safety (ill/tired/impaired driver) | Respondent argued actions were investigatory and lacked articulable facts necessary for a welfare check | Circuit court concluded record lacked competent substantial evidence officer acted pursuant to community caretaking; appellate court declined to overturn that ruling on narrow review |
| Whether hearing officer’s factual findings were supported by competent substantial evidence | Department maintained hearing record (video, reports, testimony) supported suspension and hearing officer’s findings | Respondent argued record did not support lawful stop or caretaking justification, so findings unsupported | Circuit court disagreed with hearing officer; this court denied relief because the circuit court’s ruling did not amount to a legal departure requiring certiorari reversal |
| Whether second‑tier certiorari relief is warranted here | Department argued circuit court misapplied law and relief is needed | Respondent argued circuit court applied correct law and no miscarriage of justice occurred | Appellate court held second‑tier certiorari is narrow; no departure from essential requirements of law shown, so petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185 (Fla. 1993) (standard for investigatory stops; reasonable suspicion required)
- Danielewicz v. State, 730 So.2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (sleeping in a legally parked car with engine running insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
- Agreda v. State, 152 So.3d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (community caretaking may justify brief stops to protect motoring public)
- State, Dep’t of High. Saf. & Motor Veh. v. DeShong, 603 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (recognizing welfare/caretaking stop for driver safety)
- Majors v. State, 70 So.3d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (caretaking stop must be based on specific articulable facts)
- State, Dep’t of High. Saf. & Motor Veh. v. Sperberg, 257 So.3d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (summarizing second‑tier certiorari review standard)
- Broward Cty. v. G.B.V. Int’l, Ltd., 787 So.2d 838 (Fla. 2001) (second‑tier certiorari asks whether circuit court afforded due process and applied correct law)
- Futch v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehs., 189 So.3d 131 (Fla. 2016) (limits on expanding certiorari jurisdiction to reexamine correctness)
- Nader v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehs., 87 So.3d 712 (Fla. 2012) (second‑tier certiorari reserved for departures causing miscarriage of justice)
- Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So.3d 1086 (Fla. 2010) (departure from essential requirements requires more than legal error)
- City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So.2d 624 (Fla. 1982) (first‑tier certiorari standards: due process, essential requirements, competent substantial evidence)