With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". constituted a traffic infraction. Id. at 405. The court held that the officers’ misapprehension of the law did not establish probable cause to stop the vehicle. Id. Here, as in Gordon, the officer’s belief that there was an equipment violation because only one tag light was working was a mistake of law which did not establish probable cause to stop Langello’s car. The State contends that even if Langello did not violate section 316.221(2), the stop was proper under section 316.610(1), Florida Statutes (2004). Section 316.610(1) gives a police officer authority to require the driver of a car to stop and submit to an inspection if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the car is unsafe or not equipped as required by law. See State v. Schuck, 913 So.2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). However, as explained above, the State did

A: holding that a police officer lawfully stopped the defendants car based on the reasonable belief that the taillight was broken which was an equipment violation
B: holding that once a vehicle has been lawfully stopped an officer may order the driver out of the vehicle without violating the fourth amendment
C: holding a car was broken into or entered when defendant reached in through the open window of a car
D: holding that a police officer may as a matter of course order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle
A.