Hit and Run Dismissed: Why Traffic Laws Don't Apply Behind the Gate

CASE DISMISSED

Leaving Scene of Crash | F.S. 316.061

Criminal charge dropped the morning of the suppression hearing

A Note on This Dismissal

The State did not concede the legal arguments in our motion. They dismissed the case citing "law enforcement and victim request" - essentially, the officer and the dealership declined to pursue the matter further.

But here's what matters: without a pending motion challenging jurisdiction, the State had no reason to reconsider this case. The motion created pressure. The legal issues created risk. The State found another exit rather than litigate arguments they might lose.

The Situation

Our client was at a car dealership. Things went sideways. She ended up driving through the dealership's parking lot, crashed into the secured lift gate at the exit, and left the scene. She was later transported to a hospital and involuntarily committed under Florida's Baker Act.

Police responded to the dealership for a vandalism call. They conducted a crash investigation and issued a criminal traffic citation for Leaving the Scene of a Crash under F.S. 316.061.

The Charge

F.S. 316.061 - Leaving the Scene of a Crash Involving Damage to Property
A second-degree misdemeanor carrying up to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine. More importantly, it's a criminal traffic offense that creates a permanent record.

The Legal Problem: Where Did This Crash Happen?

Here's what most people - and apparently some prosecutors - don't realize: Florida's traffic laws don't apply everywhere.

Chapter 316 of the Florida Statutes is the "Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law." It governs everything from speeding to DUI to crash reporting requirements. But it has a geographic limitation built into its foundation.

F.S. 316.640 - Enforcement

Florida Statute 316.640 authorizes law enforcement to enforce traffic laws on streets and highways "wherever the public has the right to travel by motor vehicle."

This language is critical. The enforcement authority - and by extension, the applicability of Chapter 316's substantive offenses - is tied to locations where the public has a right to travel.

A car dealership's parking lot with a secured lift gate is not such a location. The public doesn't have a right to drive there. Access is controlled. Permission is required.

The Authority: Attorney General Opinion 88-05

This isn't a novel argument. The Florida Attorney General addressed this exact issue in AGO 88-05 (March 6, 1988).

"It is the availability of the area or place for travel and the right of general and common use which makes certain private property subject to public control pursuant to Ch. 316, F.S."

— Florida Attorney General Opinion 88-05

The Attorney General drew a clear distinction:

Chapter 316 DOES Apply:

Shopping centers and parking lots open to the public - where anyone can drive in without permission.

Chapter 316 Does NOT Apply:

"Private roads located within a private development" or roads "not available for public use" - where access is restricted or controlled.

The Key Test

Ask: Does the general public have the right to drive there? Or is access limited to those with express or implied permission?

A dealership lot with a secured gate falls squarely into the second category. You can't just drive in. The gate controls access. Permission is required.

The Statutory Framework

Let's trace this through the statutes:

F.S. 316.003(82) - Definition of "Street or Highway"

Defines "street or highway" as the entire width between boundary lines of every way or place "when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic."

F.S. 316.640 - Enforcement Authority

Authorizes enforcement "wherever the public has the right to travel by motor vehicle." No public right to travel = no enforcement authority.

F.S. 316.061 - The Charged Offense

Requires the driver of a vehicle involved in a crash to stop and provide information. But this duty arises from Chapter 316 - which only applies where the public has a right to travel.

The logical chain: If Chapter 316 doesn't apply to this location, then the crash reporting duties under F.S. 316.061 don't apply either. If the duties don't apply, there's no crime in failing to fulfill them.

Our Motion to Suppress

We filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence, Statements, and Identity. The motion challenged the investigation on multiple grounds:

Jurisdiction

Officers lacked authority to conduct a Chapter 316 crash investigation on private property where the public has no right to travel.

Baker Act Interview

Officers interviewed our client at the hospital while she was involuntarily committed under the Baker Act - without a warrant, without probable cause, and while she was in legal medical custody.

Hospital Room Entry

Officers entered the private area of the hospital and our client's room without cause while she was undergoing a mental health emergency.

Identification Procedure

The officer identified our client as the driver based solely on third-party statements without any formal identification procedure.

The motion was set for hearing. The State had to decide: litigate these issues and risk an adverse ruling, or find another way out.

The Outcome

The morning of the hearing, the State filed a Nolle Prosequi - a formal notice that they were declining to prosecute.

Case Dismissed

The criminal charge was dropped. Our client has no conviction, no criminal record from this incident, and no further court obligations.

The State's stated reason? "Law enforcement and victim request." The officer and the dealership didn't want to pursue it further.

But let's be clear about what happened here:

What the State Did NOT Do

They did not concede the jurisdiction argument
They did not admit the motion had merit
They did not acknowledge any legal deficiency in the case

What Actually Happened

A motion was pending that raised serious legal questions
The State faced the prospect of litigating those questions
They found another exit - one that didn't require admitting anything
The case went away

The Lesson: Aggressive Defense Creates Options

Here's what I want you to understand about this case:

If our client had hired an attorney who didn't fight - who just showed up and negotiated a plea - the State would have had no reason to dismiss. They would have secured a conviction, our client would have a criminal record, and no one would have questioned whether the charge was legally valid in the first place.

The motion forced the State to evaluate their case. Not just "can we prove she did it?" but "can we prove the law even applies here?" That's a different question. It's a harder question. And sometimes, prosecutors decide it's not worth answering.

The State Doesn't Have to Admit You're Right

They just have to decide fighting isn't worth it. A pending motion with solid legal authority changes the calculus. They can find another reason to drop the case - "victim cooperation," "resource allocation," whatever - and save face while your case disappears.

Key Takeaways

1. Location Matters

Not every "crash" is a traffic crash under Florida law. Chapter 316 has geographic limits. If the public doesn't have a right to travel there, the traffic laws may not apply.

2. Private Property Isn't Always "Private Property"

A Walmart parking lot is private property, but the public has a right to drive there. A gated dealership lot is different. The distinction is public access, not ownership.

3. Challenge Everything

Most attorneys look at a hit-and-run case and think about damage, witnesses, and plea negotiations. We looked at jurisdiction first. Sometimes the most powerful defense is questioning whether the charge should exist at all.

4. Pressure Creates Exits

The State dismissed for reasons unrelated to our motion. But without the motion, there was no pressure. Without pressure, there's no reason to reconsider. Aggressive defense creates opportunities that don't exist otherwise.

Facing Hit and Run or Criminal Traffic Charges?

Before you accept a plea, ask: does this charge even apply? Location, jurisdiction, and procedure all matter. Sometimes the best defense starts with questioning the foundation of the case itself.

Free Consultation | Hit and Run Defense | Motion Practice | Jurisdiction Challenges

Call: 407-500-7000 Request Free Consultation

Law Office of Jeff Lotter PLLC
Serving Orlando, Orange County, and Central Florida