Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 16, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D25-1127 Lower Tribunal No. AGSSTSE ________________ Rommel Rafael Gil Pino, Appellant, vs. State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Betsy Alvarez-Zane, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Manuel Alvarez, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Katryna Santa Cruz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LOGUE, GORDO, and REBULL, JJ. LOGUE, J. Rommel Rafael Gil Pino appeals his conviction and sentence for driving under the influence in violation of section 316.193, Florida Statutes. He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained following his traffic stop because the police lacked probable cause for the stop. Having carefully reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress, we conclude the traffic stop of Gil Pino was lawful, and we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress. BACKGROUND Gil Pino was charged with one count of driving under the influence in violation of section 316.193, Florida Statutes. Prior to trial, he filed a motion to suppress, arguing the officers involved in his arrest lacked probable cause to conduct a traffic stop because he did not commit any traffic violations as there was insufficient evidence that his alleged acts created reasonable safety concerns or impacted traffic. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress. At the hearing, the officer that initiated the traffic stop, Officer Claudia Curbella-Mesa of the Doral Police Department, testified. Officer Curbella-Mesa stated that sometime after 3:00 a.m. on the night of the arrest, she observed Gil Pino’s vehicle committing several infractions and believed he might be under the influence of alcohol. Officer Curbella-Mesa indicated 2 she observed Gil Pino change lanes twice without using his turn signal and she also observed him weaving in and out of his lane. She proceeded to activate her emergency equipment and followed the vehicle, but the vehicle did not stop for another several blocks despite the officer using her lights, horn, yelp, and sirens to get the driver to stop. Officer Curbella-Mesa further testified that upon approaching the vehicle, she smelled a strong odor of alcohol emitting from the vehicle and observed Gil Pino to have red, watery, bloodshot eyes. She had to instruct him a couple of times to turn off the vehicle and step out of the vehicle. After conducting a roadside assessment, the officer testified Gil Pino was placed under arrest for DUI. On cross-examination, Officer Curbella-Mesa indicated that at the time she conducted the stop, there were other vehicles in the roadway. Officer Curbella-Mesa further testified that Gil Pino was switching lanes without using his turn signal and weaving in and out of his lane and, while he did not cause a traffic accident, he could have impacted traffic. On redirect, Officer Curbella-Mesa further explained that Gil Pino’s poor driving pattern indicated to her that there was the possibility of a traffic crash. Therefore, for the safety of other vehicles in the roadway, she decided to conduct a traffic stop. 3 The trial court ultimately denied Gil Pino’s motion to suppress, concluding that Officer Curbella-Mesa’s testimony regarding Gil Pino’s driving pattern was sufficient to establish probable cause for the two infractions identified, failure to signal when changing lanes and failure to drive within a single lane. The trial court thus concluded the stop was legal and denied the motion to suppress. The matter proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury returned a guilty verdict for driving under the influence in violation of section 316.193, Florida Statutes. This appeal timely followed. ANALYSIS Gil Pino argues on appeal that, under Florida law, minor weaving within a lane or unsignaled lane changes do not provide probable cause absent safety concerns or impact on other vehicles. We conclude these arguments are without merit for several reasons. First, Gil Pino’s reliance on Hurd v. State, 958 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), is misplaced because Hurd is factually distinguishable. In Hurd, the officer testified he came across the vehicle at issue around nine in the evening and observed the driver looking in his mirror and driving slowly. Id. at 601. He then observed the driver speed up and then slow down again. Id. at 601-02. When the vehicle approached an intersection, the officer 4 observed the vehicle cross over a solid white line into another lane without using a turn signal. Id. at 602. The officer further testified he observed the defendant committing two traffic violations, the failure to maintain a single lane and the failure to signal. Id. The officer admitted, however, that no other cars were in the vicinity when these alleged infractions occurred. Id. On appeal, the Fourth District concluded this evidence failed to establish a violation of either section 316.155, Florida Statutes,1 for failure to use a turn signal when switching lanes, or section 316.089, Florida Statutes, for failure to maintain a single lane.2 As it pertains to the failure to use a turn signal, the Fourth District relied on State v. Riley, 638 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1994), which held that section 316.155 requires a signal only if another vehicle would be affected by the turn. The Fourth District concluded that because the officer testified there were no other cars on the roadway, the failure to 1 Section 316.155, Florida Statutes, provides: “No person may turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided, in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.” § 316.155(1), Fla. Stat. 2 Section 316.089, Florida Statutes, provides: “A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.” § 316.089(1), Fla. Stat. 5 use a turn signal could not have provided probable cause for the stop. Hurd, 958 So. 2d at 602-03. As it pertained to the failure to maintain a single lane, the Fourth District held that the failure to maintain a single lane alone could not establish probable cause when the action was done safely, unless there was a reasonable suspicion of impairment, unfitness, or vehicle defects. Id. at 603. The Fourth District concluded that there was nothing in the record to establish probable cause that the defendant’s actions were not done safely, nor did the defendant’s action demonstrate erratic driving, providing the officer with a basis to suspect impairment. Id. Here, in contrast, Officer Curbella-Mesa’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing established there were other vehicles in the roadway at the time Gil Pino switched lanes without signaling. Officer Curbella-Mesa also specifically testified that Gil Pino’s poor driving pattern presented a safety concern to the other vehicles in the roadway, prompting her to conduct a traffic stop. Moreover, Officer Curbella-Mesa’s traffic stop of Gil Pino was also justified because she demonstrated a well-founded suspicion that he was impaired. “The courts of this state have recognized that a legitimate concern for the safety of the motoring public can warrant a brief investigatory stop to 6 determine whether a driver is ill, tired, or driving under the influence in situations less suspicious than that required for other types of criminal behavior.” State, Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. DeShong, 603 So. 2d 1349, 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). See also Roberts v. State, 732 So. 2d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“[A] police officer can stop a driver based on a founded suspicion that the driver is under the influence, even where the driver is not committing a separate traffic offense. In the instant case, Roberts’ continuous weaving, even if only within her lane, during the time that she was being followed presented an objective basis for suspecting that she was under the influence. Thus, the objective facts supported the stop.”); State v. Carrillo, 506 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (stating that weaving within lane five times within one-quarter mile sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion of impairment); State v. Sheldon, 394 So. 3d 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024) (holding that weaving within a lane five times within one- quarter mile was sufficient to establish founded suspicion that the driver was impaired, thereby authorizing a stop). Here, Officer Curbella-Mesa specifically testified that Gil Pino’s poor driving caused her to suspect that he was impaired. This erratic driving included changing lanes twice without using a turn signal, weaving in and out of his lane over the course of a block or two, and failing to stop for four 7 to five blocks after the officer turned on her lights, horn, yelp, and sirens to get the driver’s attention. Officer Curbella-Mesa’s suspicions were subsequently substantiated when she approached the vehicle, smelled a strong odor of alcohol emitting from the vehicle, and observed Gil Pino to have red, watery, bloodshot eyes. Officer Curbella-Mesa further testified she had to instruct Gil Pino several times to turn off the vehicle and step out before he complied. Based on this testimony, a well-founded suspicion of impairment was demonstrated, justifying the stop. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Gil Pino’s motion to suppress. Affirmed. 8