FIRST DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS

        

THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT.  THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI.  INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.

 

DATE: Wednesday, February 21, 2024

CAPTION: STATE V. WATTS

APPEAL NO.: C-230299

TRIAL NO.: C-23TRD-5083

KEY WORDS: MOTION TO SUPPRESS – OVI SUSPENSION

SUMMARY: In a prosecution for driving under an OVI suspension, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that defendant failed to satisfy the initial burden to demonstrate that the state conducted a warrantless seizure: defendant’s motion to suppress argued that defendant had been driving a vehicle registered to defendant’s daughter, the officer did not cite defendant with any other violations, and the officer testified at the motion-to-suppress hearing, but could not recall the reason for initiating the traffic stop.

JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED 

JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, J.; BOCK, P.J., and BERGERON, J., CONCUR.