Court Opinion

ID: 9822575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 09:11:07.156113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:07.441797
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
The State appeals an order granting defendant/appellee’s motion to suppress in á criminal case. In his motion, appellee contended that he had been stopped with no well-founded suspicion of criminal activity. There was a hearing on the motion at which four police officers testified. The trial judge granted the motion “after carefully considering and weighing the testimony and credibility of all of the respective witnesses.” On this appeal, although we review legal conclusions de novo, we “defer to the trial court’s factual findings and interpret the evidence,- reasonable inferences, and deductions derived from the *1002evidence in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s ruling.” Poliar v. State, 898 So.2d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Deferring to the trial judge’s evaluation of credibility, we affirm the order granting the motion to suppress.
CIKLIN, C.J., and GROSS, J., concur.
FORST, J., dissents with opinion.