Perez v. State
Perez pled guilty to methamphetamine trafficking after reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing the traffic stop was invalid because his two brief departures from his lane endangered no one. The Sixth District held that section 316.089(1) is violated — and a stop is valid — whenever a driver deviates from the lane more than is practicable, regardless of whether anyone was endangered, aligning with the Fifth District's decision in State v. Howard and certifying conflict with the Second District's Peterson v. State.
Key facts
- Perez pled guilty to methamphetamine trafficking after being stopped by an officer who observed his vehicle depart from its lane twice during driving.
- Perez reserved the right to appeal and moved to suppress the traffic stop, arguing that his brief lane departures endangered no one and therefore did not violate Florida's lane-maintenance statute.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion deepens an acknowledged district split on one of the most commonly litigated bases for pretextual traffic stops in Florida drug cases. In the Sixth District (and Fifth), defense counsel can no longer defeat… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
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.