Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Fred CARDOSA, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-12-04
Citations: 609 So. 2d 152
Docket Number: No. 92-266
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Fred CARDOSA, Appellee.
Judges: COWART and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 609
Pages: 152–153

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Fred CARDOSA, Appellee.
No. 92-266.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Dec. 4, 1992.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David G. Mersch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellant.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and M.A. Lucas, Asst. Public Defender, Dayto-na Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The State appeals an order suppressing evidence. The issue is whether the police officer's stop of the defendant's vehicle was pretextual. The standard in such cases is an objective one and is not a subjective one where the court is required to accept an officer's statement of the officer's intentions and conduct. This type, of case always involves a question of fact and the trier of the fact, the trial judge, determines the facts, including, always, the credibility of the witnesses. Appellate courts do not reverse findings of fact by the trial judge which are either supported by competent admissible evidence or which depend upon the trial court crediting essential testimony.
AFFIRMED.
COWART and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially with opinion.
. Kehoe v. State, 521 So.2d 1094 (Fla.1988); Thomas v. State, 583 So.2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Monroe v. State, 543 So.2d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).