Peeples v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT VERNON E. PEEPLES, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2D14-1009 Opinion filed September 2, 2015. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; George C. Richards, Judge. Kerry E. Mack of The Mack Law Firm, Englewood, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jason M. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Vernon Peeples, Jr., appeals his convictions for six drug offenses. All of the charges were based on law enforcement's discovery of drugs and paraphernalia after they stopped Mr. Peeples' automobile for failure to maintain a single lane on a roadway in violation of section 316.089(1), Florida Statutes (2012). The State concedes that the trial court erred in denying Mr. Peeples' motion to suppress because the stop of his car was unauthorized—law enforcement did not have a reasonable safety concern based on Mr. Peeples' one failure to maintain a single lane that did not endanger the deputies or anyone else. See Crooks v. State, 710 So. 2d 1041, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) ("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."). Accordingly, we reverse Mr. Peeples' convictions and sentences and remand with directions to discharge him. Reversed and remanded. ALTENBERND, KELLY, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.