FL1 disagrees with FL4: Color change of vehicle is not RS

In Florida, there is no way for an innocent owner to report a color change of a vehicle. The fact of a color change is innocent and alone cannot be reasonable suspicion. “We reverse the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress and certify conflict with the Fourth District’s opinion Aders v. State, 67 So. 3d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).” Van Teamer v. State, 108 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012):

Changing the color of a vehicle is not illegal, and the State does not require an owner to report the change in color to the DHSMV. See Aders, 67 So. 3d at 371. The question then is what degree of suspicion attaches to this particular noncriminal act? In Aders and the cases cited therein, a few courts have concluded that the color inconsistency alone created enough suspicion to justify an investigatory stop.

. . .

Typically, where registration color discrepancy is at issue, it is one of several factors that support a reasonable suspicion. … [¶] Other than Aders, Thiel, and Andrews, our review of state and federal caselaw reveals few other cases where the courts considered color discrepancy as the sole factor to support a reasonable suspicion. …

We acknowledge there is a lack of guidance for police officers in this state’s caselaw concerning the stopping of a vehicle for innocent behavior on the part of the driver. In State v. Diaz, a case involving a vehicle stop based on an officer’s inability to read the state-issued handwritten expiration date of a temporary tag although the tag appeared to be legally displayed, three justices would have ruled the initial stop illegal and the author of the majority opinion expressed doubt as to the legitimacy of the stop. 850 So. 2d 435, 437, 440 (Fla. 2003) (“[D]espite the fact that the driver had no control over the legibility of the expiration date, we assume for the purposes of this case that the initial stop by the deputy sheriff was legitimate, albeit [*15] based upon a barely justifiable purpose.” ).

In Florida, it is legal to repaint a vehicle without reporting the change, creating an inconsistency between the vehicle registration and the vehicle. See Aders, 67 So. 3d at 371. Further, it appears there is no way for an innocent owner to report a change in vehicle color to the DHSMV. Id. at n.3 (recognizing that the DHSMV provides a form to report a change to the body of a vehicle but not the color). While an officer may suspect that people driving a vehicle of an inconsistent color may be violating the law by driving with a swapped tag or even driving a stolen vehicle, the officer is still required to have a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417-18. If we accept the State’s argument, every person who changes the color of their vehicle is continually and perpetually subject to an investigatory stop so long as the color inconsistency persists, regardless of any other circumstances.

Substituted opinion on rehearing, reaching same result: Teamer v. State, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2107 (Fla. 1st DCA February 12, 2013).