Andrew Kent v. State
The Third DCA affirmed Kent's convictions for cocaine possession, paraphernalia possession, and giving a false name, rejecting challenges to the traffic stop, denial of severance, and denial of mistrial. The court held that an officer's observation of brake lights illuminated for only half a second was sufficient objective evidence of probable cause that the defendant failed to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, an issue with no direct Florida precedent. The court also adopted, for the first time in Florida, the federal 'prejudicial spillover'/retroactive misjoinder framework to analyze whether evidence supporting an acquitted count tainted convictions on remaining counts.
Key facts
- Kent was arrested during a traffic stop and charged with cocaine possession, paraphernalia possession, driving with suspended license (DWLS), and giving a false name to a police officer.
- At trial, the officer testified that Kent's brake lights were illuminated for less than half a second before turning off, though the officer did not directly observe Kent fail to stop at a stop sign; Kent was acquitted of the DWLS charge but convicted on the three remaining counts.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion gives Florida prosecutors and defense counsel a concrete evidentiary basis—brake-light duration—for establishing (or challenging) probable cause in stop-sign traffic stops, an issue not previously addressed… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.