Answer (1 of 2): Florida law does not require anyone to either carry or display ID documents merely because they are in public. Id. The officer must have an articulable founded suspicion of criminal activity or a reasonable belief that the passenger poses a threat to the safety of the officer, himself, or others before ordering the passenger to return to and remain in the vehicle. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Many criminal cases in Florida start with a traffic stop. Municipalities can only be held liable, however, where "action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort;" it cannot be liable under 1983 on a respondeat superior theory because it employs a tortfeasor. at 691. AL has a must identify statute, but you are not required to have photo ID on your person. PO Box 117620 Plaintiff also alleges that Sheriff Nocco created the position of Constitutional Policing Advisor to guide the Sheriff through, and make recommendations on, the best practices, policies, and procedures. The First District noted that the Aguiar court concluded the analysis in Wilson v. State was flawed because it failed to give sufficient deference to officer safety. "Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability." 1994)). 3d 95, 106 (Fla. 2017) (holding that officers may temporarily detain passengers during reasonable duration of traffic stop). Count IV is dismissed with prejudice, with no leave to amend. 901.151 (2) Whenever any law enforcement . . The First District recognized that in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), and Maryland v. Wilson (Maryland v. Wilson), 519 U.S. 408 (1997), the United States Supreme Court held that both drivers and passengers can be asked to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop. Officer Baker then repeated his "demand[] Case No. 01-21-2013, 11:40 AM. Later, Officer Baker explained it was "standard for [law enforcement] to identify everybody in the vehicle." Landeros refused to identify himself, and informed Officer Bakercorrectly, as we shall explainthat he was not required to do so. See M. Gottschalk, Caught 119-138 (2015). In this case, similar to the conflict case, Aguiar v. State, 199 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). 13-CIV-23013-GAYLES, 2016 WL 9446132, at *3 (S.D. In order to survive a motion to dismiss, factual allegations must be sufficient "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." In Colorado, police "may require" identifying information of a person. Under Florida law, to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must allege and prove the following elements: (1) the conduct was intentional or reckless; (2) the conduct was outrageous; (3) the conduct caused emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe. Id. Because Officer Dunn did not have a valid basis to require Plaintiff to provide identification, he could not arrest Plaintiff based on a failure or refusal to provide such identification. The officer admitted that he had got all the reason[s] for the stop out of the way. Id. In this case, Plaintiff has not met the high standard required to show that Deputy Dunn's conduct was "beyond all bounds of decency" or that Plaintiff suffered "severe distress." The Fifth District further noted, [a] departing passenger is a distraction that divides the officer's focus and thereby increases the risk of harm to the officer. Id. Florida's legislature has an implied consent law in place. Until their voices matter too, our justice system will continue to be anything but. Trooper Steve said not all TV shows are set in Florida, so they may not present what's lawful in the Sunshine State. Twilegar v. State, 42 So. Fla. Stat. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence . This Court is bound by the precedent of the United States Supreme Court when interpreting the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, Sheriff Nocco is not precluded from raising these arguments in future filings if appropriate. 2019). See majority op. at 263.5. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) SCOTUS ruled that an officer may direct passengers to exit the vehicle during a lawful traffic stop. Therefore, law enforcement officers may detain passengers only for the reasonable duration of a traffic stop. The stop was certainly justifiable based on the traffic violations, but there was no reasonable suspicion to otherwise justify the continued interrogation. Id. Plaintiff should take care to not plead duplicative counts against the Sheriff, and if he decides to refile this count, he should ensure that this claim is distinguishable from Count V (negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision). Outside the car, the passengers will be denied access to any possible weapon that might be concealed in the interior of the passenger compartment. PDF. Fed. The 2022 Florida Statutes (including Special Session A) 316.066 Written reports of crashes.. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF FILED, DETERMINED. We also risk treating members of our communities as second-class citizens. Id. Bd. 3d 177, 192 (Fla. 2010). After being charged with possession of a weapon by a prohibited possessor, Johnson moved to suppress the evidence as the fruit of an unlawful search. He also broadly asserts that he is entitled to dismissal of the negligent training claim because the claim "necessarily involves discretionary government policy making choices, and is thus protected by sovereign immunity." May 9, 2020 Police Interactions. The First District noted that in both cases, the Supreme Court held a traffic stop seizes both the driver and any passengers. Florida Supreme Court Says Police May Detain Innocent Passengers. In concluding the trial court properly denied suppression, the Supreme Court expressed that most traffic stops resemble, in duration and atmosphere, the kind of brief detention authorized in Terry. Id. Similarly, because there is no reasonable privacy interest in the vehicle identification number, required by law to be placed on the dashboard so as to be visible through the windshield, police may reach into the passenger compartment to remove items . A recent case, Johnson v. Thibodaux City, 887 F.3d 726 (5 th Cir. The Court agrees. Law enforcement officers in Florida must treat everyone fairly, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion. College, 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. Officer Colombo opens the purse, finds drugs inside, and places the purse's owner under arrest. i The case involved a motor vehicle stop by an Arkansas State . The jurisdiction of the County Courts is limited to certain types of cases. When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, review is generally limited to the four corners of the complaint. What Florida statute says I must give my name to police upon request and in what circumstances is it . Prescott v. Greiner, No. The Court asserted that the case was "analytically indistinguishable from Delgado. Is the passenger detained and not free to leave during a traffic stop, just as the driver is detained? 3d at 925-26 (quoting Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. at 414)). Id. Majority op. So we're hanging out. Affirmative. 8:08-cv-179-T-23MAP, 2008 WL 3411785, at *9 (M.D. After being indicted in federal court, Rodriguez moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that the officer who initiated the stop prolonged it without reasonable suspicion in order to conduct the dog sniff. This page contains significant/relevant cases that were incorporated into annual LEGAL UPDATES training. Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 333 (2009). 2016) (quoting Jenkins by Hall v. Talladega City Bd. The criminal case was ultimately dismissed. 8:16-cv-060-T-27TBM, 2016 WL 8919457, at *4 (M.D. We must not pretend that the countless people who are routinely targeted by police are isolated. They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere. 2.. Decision by Fifth Circuit: Vehicle Passengers' Arrest for Refusing to Provide Identification Violates 4th Amendment. The Court then addressed the State of California's assertion that Brendlin was not seized and, therefore, could not claim the evidence was tainted by an unconstitutional stop: We think that in these circumstances any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission. But our cases impose no rigid time limitation on Terry stops. The dissent also discussed the United States Supreme Court s opinion in Pennsylvania v. can be sued directly under 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief . In the US: Yes, an officer may ASK for a passenger's ID, but generally cannot REQUIRE a passenger to produce an ID. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly and unequivocally held that officers may order the driver and any passengers to get out of the car until the traffic stop is over ( Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997); Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) ( per curiam )). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief." At the time of their arrival, Officer Jallad and a second officer were dealing with that passenger, who was in handcuffs and behaving belligerently. so "the additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal," id., at 415. Id. Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. However, many states have passed stop-and-identify laws, which permit a law enforcement officer to stop a person suspected of criminal behavior and ask for identification. The officer returned to his vehicle a second time to run a records check on the passenger and, at that time, he requested a second officer. Specifically, the Court concluded that a passenger's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated if police detain them during the "reasonable duration" of a valid traffic stop. Officer Meurer could smell alcohol on Presley, and he heard Presley say he had been drinking all day.. This page gives information in case you have contact with the police, immigration agents, or the FBI, and helps you understand your rights. 232, 233 (M.D. Carroll was a Prohibition-era liquor case, . In other words, you must make sure that the case has not been overruled or otherwise limited by subsequent decisions or legislative action, either directly or indirectly. We have jurisdiction. "Arguable probable cause exists if, under all of the facts and circumstances, an officer reasonably could - not necessarily would - have believed that probable cause was present." Resulted in death of, personal injury to, or any indication of complaints of pain or discomfort by any of the parties or passengers involved in the crash; 2. Involved a violation of s. 316.061 (1) or s. 316.193; Id. These courts also review appeals of decisions by County Courts. 2003) (internal quotation omitted). Call the Law Offices of Julia Kefalinos at 305-676-9545 if . (877) 255-3652. 14-10154 (2016). We have two convenient locations in North Central Florida: Allen Law Firm, P.A. 2018). . Id. . Further, the Court ruled that fleeing from police may be suspicious enough in . The First District then explained that the seminal case in Florida on passenger detentions during traffic stops is Wilson v. For the reasons expressed below, we approve the decision of the First District and hold that law enforcement officers may, as a matter of course, detain the passengers of a vehicle for the reasonable duration of a traffic stop without violating the Fourth Amendment.1, At the time of the events in this case, Gregory Presley was on drug offender probation. What is at most a mere inconvenience cannot prevail when balanced against legitimate concerns for the officer's safety. 3d at 87. This improper mixing of claims makes it difficult for Defendants to respond accordingly and present defenses, and for the Court to appropriately adjudicate this case. "[T]he existence of probable cause is an absolute bar to a claim for false arrest or false imprisonment." (officer may detain person for purpose of ascertaining identity when officer reasonably believes person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime); Hiibel v. Sixth Jud. But, is the passenger free to leave once the vehicle is stopped? A CONFLICT EXISTS IN THIS CASE WITH THE DECISION OF THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN NULPH V. STATE, 838 SO. Once there is activity that raises any Terry issue, no problem with IDing passengers. Passengers not suspected of any wrongdoing can be held and questioned by police during any traffic stop under Florida high court ruling. Id.at 248. 551 U.S. at 251. 3d 920 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), the traffic stop was for a faulty taillight and running a stop sign. Presley and the driver were standing outside of the vehicle. Id. You can't go anywhere at the moment because you're part of this stop. Call 800-351-0917 to set up your complimentary account. at 329. at 253 n.2. As reflected by Rodriguez, however, the length of detention during a traffic stop is not subject to the unfettered discretion of law enforcement. at 394 n.3 opportunity to obtain a warrant and failed to do so, the search will still be valid if the two requirements discussed above were present. Id. If you are stopped by police, you will be asked to show identification (driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance). [I]n a traffic-stop setting, the first Terry conditiona lawful investigatory stopis met whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation. If you are researching an issue and want to find relevant cases in print, you will need to start with a digest, which is an index of case law. Fla. 1995). It is also reasonable for passengers to expect that a police officer at the scene of a crime, arrest, or investigation will not let people move around in ways that could jeopardize his safety. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)); see also Prescott v. Oakley, No. In this count, Plaintiff alleges negligent hiring, negligent training, negligent retention, and negligent supervision. However, "[a] police officer who arrests a suspect but does not make the decision of whether or not to prosecute cannot be liable for malicious prosecution under 1983." 8:20-cv-1370-T-60JSS (M.D. As noted by the United States Supreme Court, [t]he touchstone of [an] analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security. Mimms, 434 U.S. at 108-09 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968)). at 254. Nothing occurred in this case that would have conveyed to Johnson that, prior to the frisk, the traffic stop had ended or that he was otherwise free to depart without police permission. Officer Trevizo surely was not constitutionally required to give Johnson an opportunity to depart the scene after he exited the vehicle without first ensuring that, in so doing, she was not permitting a dangerous person to get behind her. Crosby v. Monroe County, 394 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir. Detention is permissible for this limited period of time because it allows law enforcement officers to safely do their jobaccomplishing the mission of the stopand not be at risk due to potential violence from passengers or other vehicles on the roadway. In two cases arising from Florida drug interdiction inspections, the U.S. Supreme Court said that when officers boarded buses during scheduled stops and asked passengers for consent to search, the passengers had not necessarily been detained, because the officers had done nothing that would have communicated to a reasonable innocent person that he or she was not at liberty to ignore the police . See also United States v. at 1615 (citations omitted). The passenger can be ordered from the vehicle and kept out until the completion of the traffic stop. at 413 n.1. Rickman v. Precisionaire, Inc., 902 F. Supp. In its opinion, the court stated that . Fla. Cmty. Corbitt, 929 F.3d at 1311 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). 1997) (finding no Fourth Amendment violation where officer, during traffic stop investigation, asked passenger of vehicle to step out and provide identification; under Rule 2.2(a), the officer was permitted to request passenger's cooperation in the investigation or prevention of crime); United States v Florida . It appears that Florida courts have not specifically held that law enforcement officers may require passengers to provide identification during traffic stops absent a reasonable suspicion that the passenger had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense. The requisite causal connection can be established "when a history of widespread abuse puts the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged deprivation, and he fails to do so." A traffic stop necessarily curtails the travel a passenger has chosen just as much as it halts the driver and the police activity that normally amounts to intrusion on privacy and personal security does not normally (and did not here) distinguish between passenger and driver. 3d at 88-89 (citing Brendlin, 551 U.S. at 251; Johnson, 555 U.S. at 327). "In this circuit, the law can be 'clearly established' for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, or the highest court of the state where the case arose." (1) It is unlawful for a person who has been arrested or lawfully detained by a law enforcement officer to give a false name, or otherwise falsely identify himself or herself in any way . In fact, a court "may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not 'clearly established' by prior case law without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all." Such an arbitrary interference with the freedom of movement of one who is not suspected of any illegal activity whatsoever cannot be classified as a de minimis intrusion. An officer's inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic stop, this Court has made plain, do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure, so long as those inquiries do not measurably extend the duration of the stop. On-scene investigation into other crimes, however, detours from that mission. 3d at 192. Wilson, held that police officers can ask passengers to get out of a vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment. . A sheriff or other officer acting as sheriff, his deputy or any constable, acting within their respective counties, any marshal, deputy marshal . When analyzing a battery claim based on excessive force, a court considers "whether the amount of force used was reasonable under the circumstances." An officer noticed one of the two passengers, Johnson, wore colors consistent with gang membership and was in possession of a police scanner. DeRosa v. Rambosk, 732 F. Supp. The arrest and drug seizure were valid. Authority of peace officer to stop and question. 2019) (explaining that although an officer may question a person at any time, the individual can ignore the questions and go his way without providing the necessary objective grounds for reasonable suspicion). pursuant to a governmental 'custom' even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decisionmaking channels." 199 So. The case law establishes that in most situations a person's name and biographical information does not implicate their right against self-incrimination, so a suspect can be asked his name, date of birth, et cetera. 12/02/2019 - 19-02: Resisting an Officer without Violence - Lawful Execution of a Legal Duty. See id. ( Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999).) To the extent that Plaintiff alleges his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated during his arrest, the Court finds that he cannot state a claim for relief because he was not a pretrial detainee at the time the arrest occurred. 3d at 926). Landeros, No. Florida CAN and DOES require those who are performing certain licensed activities and are reasonably suspected of a violation of that licensing agreement to display and. 3:16-cv-231-J-34PDB, 2019 WL 423319, at *17 (M.D. The Supreme Court quoted Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981), in support of its conclusion that the Fourth Amendment permits law enforcement officers to order passengers out of a vehicle: [In Summers,] the police had obtained a search warrant for contraband thought to be located in a residence, but when they arrived to execute the warrant they found Summers coming down the front steps. . In concluding that passengers are seized during a traffic stop for Fourth Amendment purposes, the Supreme Court first noted the general proposition that: [a] person is seized by the police and thus entitled to challenge the government's action under the Fourth Amendment when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, terminates or restrains his freedom of movement, Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n.16 (1968)), through means intentionally applied, Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 597 (1989) (emphasis in original). ; see also State v. Butler, 655 So. Those are four different concepts. . at 413-14. Contains all published U.S. court decisions, both federal and state, from 1658 through June 2018. by Aaron Black March 21, 2019. Id. P. 8(a). Id. Under Florida law, the elements of the tort of malicious prosecution are: "(1) an original judicial proceeding against the present plaintiff was commenced or continued; (2) the present defendant was the legal cause of the original proceeding; (3) the termination of the original proceeding constituted a bona fide termination of that proceeding in favor of the present plaintiff; (4) there was an absence of probable cause for the original proceeding; (5) there was malice on the part of the present defendant; and (6) the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the original proceeding." Presley, 204 So. (Doc. 2d at 1113. Normally, the stop ends when the police have no further need to control the scene, and inform the driver and passengers they are free to leave. The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B) 901.151 Stop and Frisk Law.. By Mark Hanna. Fla. Dec. 6, 2016) (dismissing battery claims against deputies because factual allegations regarding events were insufficient to show use of force was unreasonable). The circuit court revoked Presley's probation and sentenced him to multiple terms of incarceration for his earlier drug crimes. - License Classes and Endorsements Sections 322.12 and 322.221, F.S. The holdings in Presley and Wilson v. State reach opposite conclusions on a legal issuewhether law enforcement officers may, during a lawful traffic stop, detain a passenger as a matter of course for the duration of the stop without violating the passenger's Fourth Amendment rights. However, courts may exercise their discretion when deciding which of the two prongs should be addressed first, depending upon the unique circumstances in each particular case. Although Plaintiff does not allege a pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees, such allegation is not necessarily required to support a 1983 claim in this case. Plaintiff, in fact, contends that the Sheriff ratified this conduct through his Constitutional Policing Advisor. A: Yes. Fla. Feb. 4, 2019). Carroll v. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1925)-Police may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle stopped on traffic if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence.The search without a warrant is justified based on the exigent circumstance that a vehicle stopped on traffic could be quickly moved out of . Id. at 413. 2008). The Court noted the same interest in officer safety is present regardless of whether the vehicle occupant is a driver or passenger: Regrettably, traffic stops may be dangerous encounters. Passengers in automobiles that are pulled over for minor traffic violations are not free to leave the scene, the Florida Supreme . The question in the case depended upon a determination whether the officers had the authority to require him to re-enter the house and to remain there while they conducted their search. Id. Id. Because the legitimate and weighty concern of officer safety can only be addressed if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation[,] we believe that this interest outweighs the minimal intrusion on those few passengers who might prefer to leave the scene. If you need legal assistance, contact the Gainesville personal injury lawyers at Allen Law Firm at your nearest location to schedule a free consultation today. As Plaintiff began to exit the vehicle, Deputy Dunn said to another officer that he was "going to take him no matter what because he's resisting. at 252.4 One officer recognized the passenger as one of the Brendlin brothers, and knew that one of the brothers had dropped out of parole supervision. Id. However, to the extent any factual findings are involved in the application of the law to a specific case, the findings of the circuit court must be sustained if supported by competent substantial evidence. Id. Officers John Pandak and Joshua Meurer subsequently responded to the scene based upon a request for backup due to a struggle occurring with the other passenger, who had exited the vehicle and attempted to leave. For example, Nevada has a statute requiring giving your name to an officer, but California does not. at 25. Id. This conclusion is consistent with the evolution of Supreme Court precedent and the common thread that runs through these casesthe legitimate and weighty interest in officer safety during a traffic stop outweighs the intrusion upon a passenger's liberty interest and permits an officer to exercise unquestioned command of the situation. Johnson, 555 U.S. at 330-31 (quoting Mimms, 434 U.S. at 110; Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. at 414). 901.36 Prohibition against giving false name or false identification by person arrested or lawfully detained; penalties; court orders.. Based upon her observations and Johnson's answers to her questions while he was still seated in the vehicle, the officer suspected he might possess a weapon, so when Johnson exited, she frisked him and felt the butt of a gun. Dist. As such, Deputy Dunn had neither actual probable cause nor arguable probable cause to arrest Plaintiff. 1996). Frias v. Demings, 823 F. Supp. See M. Alexander, The New Jim Crow 95-136 (2010). 2550 SW 76th St #150. Previous Legal Updates. (1) This section may be known and cited as the "Florida Stop and Frisk Law.". At that time, and in the absence of reasonable suspicion that a passenger is engaged in criminal activity, the police have no further need to control the scene, Johnson, 555 U.S. at 333, and the passenger must be allowed to depart. The Court recognized that passengers in a vehicle stopped on traffic increases the danger to the officer. at 415 n.3. Reasonableness depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers. Mimms, 434 U.S. at 109 (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975)). The Supreme Court elaborated: Unlike a general interest in criminal enforcement, however, the government's officer safety interest stems from the mission of the stop itself. Id. 6.. Because the Court is considering the qualified immunity issue at this stage of the proceedings, it relies on the well-pleaded facts alleged by Plaintiff in his complaint. Brown v. City of Huntville, Ala., 608 F.3d 724, 734 (11th Cir. As previously discussed, both the First and Fifth Districts concluded that, even if asking a passenger to remain at the scene is more burdensome than merely asking the passenger to exit the vehicle, the intrusion upon personal liberty is de minimis because (1) the method of transport has already been lawfully interrupted by virtue of the stop, (2) the passenger has already been stopped by virtue of the driver's lawful detention, and (3) routine traffic stops are brief in duration. However, in 1999, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal decided a case called Wilson v. State, which held that officers could not order passengers to remain inside a vehicle during a traffic stop. All rights reserved. PASCO COUNTY, Fla. -- "I'm a passenger. And we have specifically recognized the inordinate risk confronting an officer as he approaches a person seated in an automobile. But it is no secret that people of color are disproportionate victims of this type of scrutiny. I was on a vehicle as a passenger with my safety belt on and was pulled over. Fla. 2011). The officer verified that Brendlin was a parole violator with an outstanding no-bail arrest warrant and ordered Brendlin out of the vehicle. Deputy Dunn also searched Plaintiff's wallet, took his identification, and entered his name into a computer. In Wilson v. State, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held: [A] police officer conducting a lawful traffic stop may not, as a matter of course, order a passenger who has left the stopped vehicle to return to and remain in the vehicle until completion of the stop.
Somerset County, Nj Police Blotter,
Saha Housing Application,
Ariel Malone Married,
Ferrari Collector David Lee Net Worth,
Articles F