Case Name: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Antonio Vincent ADAMS, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2017-08-18
Citations: 225 So. 3d 943
Docket Number: Case No. 5D17-442
Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Antonio Vincent ADAMS, Appellee.
Judges: TORPY, EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 225
Pages: 943–943

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Antonio Vincent ADAMS, Appellee.
Case No. 5D17-442
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Opinion filed August 18, 2017
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Sean Kevin Gravel and Nancy Ryan, Assistant Public Defenders, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The State challenges the order suppressing evidence discovered in plain view after police officers stopped Appellee's vehicle and ordered him out of the car. Although the trial court concluded that the stop was properly predicated on reasonable suspicion that the vehicle's windows were too darkly tinted, the court concluded that the officers did not have an independent basis for ordering Appellee (the driver) to exit the vehicle. Appellee does not controvert that this conclusion .was error based upon Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), and its progeny. He argues instead that the error was not preserved due to the lack of "precise argument" below by the State. We disagree and reverse. We conclude that the State's argument regarding the justification for ordering Appellee from the vehicle was sufficient to preserve the issue.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORPY, EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.