Van Teamer v. State
108 So. 3d 664
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellee’s motion for rehearing denied; the prior opinion is withdrawn and replaced for clarification.
- Appellant Kerick Van Teamer seeks review of the denial of his motion to suppress and the resulting trafficking judgment.
- The stop occurred June 22, 2010, after an officer observed a color/color mismatch between registration and vehicle.
- Officer testified color discrepancy raised suspicion; no other traffic violations or suspicious behavior were observed.
- The vehicle contained marijuana, crack cocaine, and about $1,100 in cash; appellant was charged with trafficking, possession of marijuana, and paraphernalia.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress; a jury convicted on all counts; on appeal, the state’s reliance on Aders was rejected and suppression was reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is color inconsistency alone enough for an investigatory stop? | Teamer: color mismatch alone supports stop. | State: mismatch signals possible criminal activity (registration/plate issue). | No; color mismatch alone is insufficient for a stop. |
| Should Aders control here or not? | Teamer: Aders supports stop despite lack of additional factors. | State: color discrepancy justifies stop under Aders. | Conflict with Aders; color discrepancy alone not enough. |
| What is the proper standard of review for a suppression ruling? | Teamer: de novo review of law-to-fact application. | State: defer to trial court on factual findings. | De novo review applied to the legal framework; issues resolved in favor of Teamer. |
| Are additional cases or circumstances needed to validate a stop based on color discrepancy? | Teamer: require articulated suspicion beyond color. | State: combination of color issue and circumstances suffices. | In absence of other suspicions, color alone insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aders v. State, 67 So.3d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (color discrepancy alone not sufficient to stop (conflict foreseen))
- Diaz v. State, 850 So.2d 435 (Fla. 2003) (reasonableness balancing of state and motorist interests)
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1979) (stop must be reasonable; probable cause or articulable suspicion required)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (totality of circumstances test for stop’s reasonableness)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1981) (particularized and objective basis required for stop)
- Smith v. State, 713 N.E.2d 338 (Indiana 1999) (color discrepancy alone insufficient in some jurisdictions)
- Andrews v. State, 658 S.E.2d 126 (Ga. App. 2008) (color discrepancy insufficient without other indicia)
- U.S. v. Caro, 248 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2001) (registration color discrepancy relevant but not sole basis)
- U.S. v. Rodgers, 656 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2011) (color discrepancy plus other factors may support suspicion)