Sowerby v. State, 73 So. 3d 329

Sowerby was convicted of driving while his license was permanently revoked; the appeal challenges the traffic stop as unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
Officer stopped the vehicle because he believed the license plate was improperly mounted within the trunk area, though the plate was a dealer plate with a magnetic back.
The dealer plate was actually lawfully mounted within statutory limits (within 60 inches height, 12–24 inches from centerline).
The stop proceeded to arrest when Sowerby could not produce a license; suppression motion argued the stop lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
The trial court denied suppression; the appellate standard of review balances factual findings (de novo review of law) and legal application.
The State argued the stop was justified by a reasonable suspicion the plate violated a visibility requirement, but the court found fault with this theory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the stop justified by reasonable suspicion or probable cause?	Sowerby argues the stop was unsupported by suspicion or cause.	State contends there was at least reasonable suspicion based on plate requirements.	Stop unjustified; suppression should have been granted.
Did Diaz require ceasing detention once the initial stop’s basis was invalidated?	Once the basis for the stop was invalid, continued detention lacked justification.	State maintains there remained some permissible grounds for detaining the motorist.	Detention improperly continued after validity was established; suppression required.
Can the State salvage the stop under a 100-foot visibility/legibility theory?	Not addressed; plate clearly within statutory limits, making the theory irrelevant.	Officer could have believed the tag was not plainly visible from 100 feet.	Arguments failed: no evidence plate not visible, no testimony tying visibility to stop, and not the State’s theory below.

Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1979) (stopping an automobile constitutes a seizure governed by the Fourth Amendment)
State v. Jones, 483 So.2d 433 (Fla.1986) (seizure and detention framework under Fourth Amendment for traffic stops)
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983) (constitutional limits on investigative detentions)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (pretextual stops; subjective intent is not controlling if objective justification exists)
Diaz, 850 So.2d 435 (Fla.) (once purpose for stop is satisfied, officer has no basis to further detain)
Hilgeman v. State, 790 So.2d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (misunderstanding of law does not create probable cause)
State v. K.N., 66 So.3d 380 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (mixed standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Diaz, 850 So.2d 435 (Fla.) (see Diaz discussion re detention after invalid basis)
State v. Baez, 894 So.2d 115 (Fla.2004) (no evidence officer had reasonable basis to investigate after stop)
State v. Tullis, 970 So.2d 912 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (contextual reference for suppression standards)