Cases from cite.case.law:

CLASSY CYCLES, INC. v. BAY COUNTY, a a, 201 So. 3d 779 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . headsets), §§ 316.500-316.555 (weight and length limits), 316.600 (health and sanitation hazards), § 316.610 . . .

STATE v. WILLIAMS,, 119 So. 3d 544 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . .” § 316.610, Fla. Stat. (2001). . . .

SPRINGER, v. STATE, 125 So. 3d 271 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Our supreme court wrote that: [i]t is a question of statutory interpretation as to whether section 316.610 . . . Further, the officer testified that the missing mirror rendered the vehicle unsafe, pursuant to section 316.610 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ANDERSON,, 367 F. App'x 30 (11th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 316.610). . . .

STATE v. TAYLOR,, 16 So. 3d 997 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . the tag to be illuminated at a distance of 40 to 50 feet justified an “inspection stop” under section 316.610 . . .

DAVISON, v. STATE, 15 So. 3d 34 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . . § 316.610, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . .

PAUL, v. STATE, 991 So. 2d 404 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Analysis Section 316.610, Florida Statutes (2002), provides: It is a violation of this chapter for any . . . In Hilton I, we reasoned that section 316.610(1), Florida Statutes (2001), permitted a stop for a cracked . . . Thus, for a stop to be constitutional under the “not in proper adjustment or repair” section of 316.610 . . . defects that violate the law under the statute, and thus allow a stop under section 316.610(1), are . . . The court held in Hilton II that section 316.610 did not authorize an officer to stop a vehicle for any . . .

STATE v. HOWARD,, 983 So. 2d 671 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . State, 961 So.2d 284 (Fla.2007), in which the court determined that the language in section 316.610(1 . . .

A. PEREZ- GARCIA, v. STATE, 983 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2008)

. . . that an inoperable left rear taillight is an objectively “unsafe condition,” prohibited by section 316.610 . . .

SWAGERTY, v. STATE, 982 So. 2d 19 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . Further, even where certain equipment is required by statute, section 316.610 would permit stops where . . . Under the State’s interpretation of section 316.610, if a truck is equipped with fenders, but those fenders . . . As this Court concluded unanimously in Doctor, placing such a broad interpretation on section 316.610 . . . State], 912 So.2d [550] at 557 [ (Fla.2005) ], we conclude that the provision of section 316.610 which . . . authorizes vehicle stops for equipment that is “not in proper adjustment or repair,” § 316.610(1), Fla . . .

LANGELLO, v. STATE, 970 So. 2d 491 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . contends that even if Langello did not violate section 316.221(2), the stop was proper under section 316.610 . . . Section 316.610(1) gives a police officer authority to require the driver of a car to stop and submit . . . Accordingly, the stop was not authorized under section 316.610(1). See Hilton v. . . .

ZARBA, a k a v. STATE, 993 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . [to] be equipped with two or more stop lamps” — the traffic stop was lawful under section 316.610. . . . . § 316.610 (emphasis added). . . . Instead, the circuit court identified section 316.610(1) as the basis for its finding that the stop of . . . The State contends that the traffic stop was lawful under section 316.610(1). . . . Thus Hilton II not only rejects our en banc majority’s interpretation of section 316.610 in Hilton I, . . .

UNITED STATES v. ST. LOUIS,, 255 F. App'x 432 (11th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 316.610(1). . . .

DEY, v. STATE, 967 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . (Hilton III), quashed this court’s decision in Hilton II, concluding that the provision of section 316.610 . . . which authorizes vehicle stops for equipment that is ‘not in proper adjustment or repair,’ § 316.610 . . . that the crack renders the vehicle ‘in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person or property.’ § 316.610 . . .

HILTON, v. STATE, 961 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2007)

. . . Id. at 157 (quoting § 316.610(1)). . . . (quoting § 316.610(1)). . . . , provides, in pertinent part: 316.610. . . . in the unnumbered introductory paragraph, see § 316.610, Fla. . . . See § 316.610, Fla. Stat. (2001). . . . Moreover, the majority gives an unreasonable construction to section 316.610, Florida Statutes (2001) . . . of a cracked lens cover on one of his car’s taillights, a condition which allegedly violated section 316.610 . . . is integral to the safe operation of the vehicle, is included within the equipment to which section 316.610 . . . A stop is lawful under section 316.610 where the vehicle reasonably appears to have an equipment violation . . . As the Fourth District wrote in Schuck: Section 316.610(1) expressly gives a police officer the authority . . . Under the majority’s interpretation of section 316.610(2), Florida Statutes (2001), an officer must have . . . with an inoperable brake light is a vehicle in an ‘unsafe condition’ within the meaning of ... section 316.610 . . .

STATE v. LEE,, 957 So. 2d 76 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . In relevant part, section 316.610, Florida Statutes (2005), provides: It is a violation of this chapter . . .

STATE v. A. PEREZ- GARCIA,, 917 So. 2d 894 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . condition, the officer may require the vehicle to be immediately repaired or removed from use.... § 316.610 . . . As the Second District recently noted, section 316.610(1) of this statute expressly gives a police officer . . . a violation has occurred is in turn determined by reference to the unnumbered paragraph of section 316.610 . . . Kindle, 782 So.2d 971, 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(holding as “clearly lawful” a stop under section 316.610 . . . Because Perez-Garcia’s vehicle was in an “unsafe condition” within the meaning of section 316.610 of . . .

STATE v. SCHUCK,, 913 So. 2d 69 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Thus, the officer was authorized to stop Schuck pursuant to section 316.610(1), Florida Statutes, which . . . Additionally, section 316.610(2) addresses stops for equipment violations that are not unduly hazardous . . . vehicle was not in compliance with section 316.221(1) and could be stopped for inspection pursuant to 316.610 . . . Section 316.610(1) expressly gives a police officer the authority to require the driver of a vehicle . . . A stop is lawful under section 316.610 where the vehicle reasonably appears to have an equipment violation . . .

STATE v. HOWARD,, 909 So. 2d 390 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . The attorneys discussed the applicability of section 316.610, Florida Statutes (2004), which states: . . . 316.610 Safety of vehicle; inspection. — It is a violation of this chapter for any person to drive or . . . was 14 inches long) demonstrated that the “equipment [wa]s not in proper repair,” contrary to section 316.610 . . . The Second District Court in Hilton I reasoned that because section 316.610 expressly makes it a traffic . . . Hilton II construed sections 316.2952 and 316.610(1) as establishing that the officers had lawfully stopped . . .

STATE v. O. BURKE,, 902 So. 2d 955 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . Section 316.610(1) expressly gives a police officer the authority to require the driver of a vehicle . . .

E. IVORY, v. STATE, 898 So. 2d 184 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . More important, under section 316.610(1), if a law .enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe . . .

HILTON, v. STATE, 901 So. 2d 155 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . This belief stems from an erroneously literal, and therefore overbroad, reading of subsection 316.610 . . . For Fourth Amendment purposes, it is important to note that subsection 316.610(1) does not describe any . . . Neither does Florida’s subsection 316.610(1). . . . Section 316.610 begins with an unnumbered paragraph that reads in pertinent part: It is a violation of . . . This statement completely ignores that Doctor involved the application of subsection 316.610(1) to a . . . Section 316.610(1), expressly gives a police officer the authority to require the driver of a vehicle . . . We first note that section 316.610(1) permits a stop when a vehicle is unsafe or when a vehicle has equipment . . . We agree with the dissent that the first, unnumbered paragraph of section 316.610 is also relevant to . . . Second, section 316.610(2) addresses stops for equipment violations which are not unduly hazardous: In . . . Third, we conclude that the power extended to the police in section 316.610(1) does not violate the Fourth . . .

JOHNSON, v. STATE, 888 So. 2d 122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . misidentification of the cracked lens as a cracked light and the court’s incorrect application of section 316.610 . . . The officers asserted that this condition constituted an equipment violation under section 316.610, Florida . . . denying the motion to suppress, the trial court found that the stop was justified based on section 316.610 . . . Given the officer’s testimony indicating that the vehicle’s brake light was working, section 316.610 . . .

FRIERSON, v. STATE, 851 So. 2d 293 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Section 316.610, Florida Statutes (2000) prohibits the driving of a vehicle that “is not at all times . . . officer may “require the driver of the vehicle to stop and submit the vehicle to an inspection. ...” § 316.610 . . .

STATE v. KINDLE,, 782 So. 2d 971 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Section 316.610, Florida Statutes (1999) provides that it is a violation to drive a vehicle, or for the . . .

SCOTT, v. STATE, 710 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . for the court to rule that the officer had probable cause to stop defendant’s car pursuant to section 316.610 . . .

STATE v. SAVINO O., 686 So. 2d 811 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . would hold that the officer had probable cause to stop appellees’ vehicle for a violation of section 316.610 . . .

STATE v. DANIEL,, 665 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1995)

. . . Likewise, we rejected the State’s argument that section 316.610, Florida Statutes (1987) — which we read . . . Section 316.610(1), Florida Statutes (1991), states: Any police officer may at any time, upon reasonable . . .

CAMPBELL, v. STATE, 667 So. 2d 279 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

. . . upon reasonable cause to believe that a vehicle is unsafe or not equipped as required by law,” section 316.610 . . .

THOMAS, v. STATE, 644 So. 2d 597 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . .§ 316.610, Fla.Stat. (1991). . § 322.34, Fla.Stat. (1991). . Terry v. . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, BUREAU OF DRIVER IMPROVEMENT, STATE OF FLORIDA, v. THOMPSON,, 622 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Pursuant to section 316.610, Florida Statutes (1991), it is a violation of Florida law to drive a vehicle . . .

DOCTOR, v. STATE, 596 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1992)

. . . Section 316.610, however, must be read in conjunction with those statutes which delineate the specific . . .

STATE v. RODRIGUEZ,, 542 So. 2d 454 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . See § 316.610, Fla.Stat. (1987). . . .

STATE v. W. PATRICK,, 437 So. 2d 217 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)

. . . Both are required by sections 316.605 and 316.610, Florida Statutes (Supp.1978), respectively. . . .

CHEATEM a k a v. STATE, 416 So. 2d 35 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . Both are required by sections 316.605 and 316.610, Florida Statutes (Supp.1978), respectively. . . . When section 901.25 was amended in 1978 by the Florida Legislature, violations of sections 316.605 and 316.610 . . . sections 316.284 and 316.285; and that when the Legislature renumbered the sections to 316.605 and 316.610 . . .