MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Defendant, XXXXXXX, by and through the undersigned attorney, files this Motion to Suppress and shows the following: 1. Defendant has been charged with the offense of Driving on a Revoked Drivers License. 2. Defendant was arrested without lawful warrant, probable cause or other lawful authority in violation of the rights of Defendant pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 3. Any statements obtained from Defendant were obtained in violation of the rights of Defendant pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article I, sections 9, 16, and 21 of the Florida Constitution, and Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(i). 4. All other evidence in this matter was obtained due to the unlawful stop of the Defendant without probable cause or other lawful authority in violation of the rights of Defendant pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution. As such all evidence obtained by the arresting officer is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" as set forth in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471(1963). 5. Defendant was arrested and charged with Driving on a Revoked Driver's License in violation of Florida Statute § 322.34(5). The arresting officer lacked probable cause to make the traffic stop as the arresting officer did not witness the Defendant commit a violation of Chapter 316, also known as the State Uniform Traffic Control. Pursuant to Florida Statute § 901.15(5), an officer may only make an arrest for a violation of chapter 316 if the offense is committed in his or her presence. 6. The arresting officer in this matter was notified by CSO L. and CSO G. that the
Defendant committed a violation of chapter 316. It is important for the court to note that a CSO is a "community service officer" and not a police officer authorized to make traffic stops .
7. The State relies on the "Fellow Officer Rule" sometimes referred to as the Collective
Knowledge Doctrine. However, this rule is inapplicable to the current matter. "The fellow officer rule or doctrine operates to impute the knowledge of one officer in the chain of investigation to another." State v. Adderly, 809 So.2d 75, 76(Fla. 4th DCA 2002) quoting State v. Evans, 692 So.2d 216, 218(Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
8. There is a salient distinction between the cases cited in the case at hand being that the individual reporting the Chapter 316 to the arresting officer in this matter was not a police officer. The individual reporting the violation to the officer in this matter was a civilian hired by the police department to conduct ministerial functions such as write accident reports, take statements, etc. However, upon information and belief, a Community Service Officer has absolutely no law enforcement authority. As such, a CSO is not a police officer or fellow officer for purposes of the fellow officer rule. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that the Court suppress such matters at trial of this cause, and for such other and further relief in connection therewith that is proper.