Fighting for you, a friend, or your Family.

Call 813-222-2220

Thursday, April 06, 2017

Can a Sleeping Driver be charged with DUI in Florida?

Actual Physical Control, Sleeping Driver, DUI, Probable Cause
Actual Physical Control
Sleeping Driver
DUI, Probable Cause

What happens when a cop approaches a sleeping DUI Driver?


The Facts:

Deputy approaches legally parked car
Makes an approach to vehicle
Second approach to vehicle
Deputy parks patrol car behind suspect
Driver seen with GPS on dash
DUI cop has a "hunch" driver is DUI
Arrests driver

The Ruling:

Court found insufficient basis for a DUI investigation.

The Reasons:

One commentator has observed, "Deputy had legitimate reason to pull alongside defendant's vehicle, which was stopped on roadside at night in isolated location, to conduct wellness check -- Fact that deputy shone flashlight into vehicle and told defendant to roll down window did not convert encounter into investigatory stop -- Where deputy saw that defendant was alert and conscious and defendant responded to inquiry about his well-being, deputy's subsequent actions of parking patrol vehicle behind defendant's vehicle with lights activated and directing defendant to turn off vehicle and provide identification was unlawful investigatory stop -- Motion to suppress is granted." 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 829a


Quotes from a Recent DUI Court Opinion


"In most DUI cases, a traffic stop is made because the officer has probable cause that a traffic infraction has occurred or the officer has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See State v. Wimberly, 988 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly D1856a] and Origi v. State, 912 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D2302a]. There is also a justifiable reason for a traffic stop if there is “. . . a legitimate concern for the safety of the motoring public [which] can warrant a brief investigatory stop to determine whether a driver is ill, tired, or driving under the influence in situations less suspicious than that required for other types of criminal behavior.” State, Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. DeShong, 603 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)." 

"Once Dep. Woell saw that the Defendant was conscious and able to make a response to his inquiry regarding whether he was all right, even if it was poorly done, there should have been more of an effort to discern if there was truly a concern for the Defendant's safety before taking the next steps. The Defendant had done nothing illegal. He had pulled off the road in a proper fashion and had not affected other traffic. He was able to roll down his window and respond to the officer, albeit incoherently in the Deputy's view. There was no visible injury, no blood or vomit. The Defendant was alert and conscious. Tellingly, the Deputy said, while being cross-examined, that he saw (from a decent distance) that the Defendant had bloodshot eyes (the cause of which could be from many reasons) and that he had a hunch the driver was impaired."

"[T]he second approach (by parking behind the Defendant, walking up to the driver's door, and directing him to turn off the car and to provide identification) as not a true welfare check. If he had made more than one inquiry while he was alongside the Defendant, perhaps raised his voice one time to try to get a clearer response, or articulated with more specificity how this particular driver looked to be in some possible distress, this Court's conclusion may have been different. It would be a slippery slope to give an officer carte blanche to use a well-being concern to get around the need for a reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop."

"Based on the circumstances and the case law, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant's Motion to Suppress is GRANTED."







Complete Sleeping Driver Actual Physical Control DUI Court Opinion


STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT CODY NANCARROW Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2016-301820-MMDB, Division 80. October 16, 2016. Bryan A. Feigenbaum, Judge. Counsel: Andrew Draper, Assistant State Attorney, for Plaintiff. G. Kipling Miller, Koleilat & Miller, for Defendant.


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on September 14, 2016 for a hearing on Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence pursuant to Rule 3.190 Fla. R. Crim. P.; the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and Article 1, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution. The Court, having taken notice of the court file, having listened to the testimony of the witnesses, and having considered the arguments from counsel, makes the following findings upon which it enters this Order:

On the late evening of February 14, 2016, around 11 p.m., Deputy Woell of the Volusia County Sheriff's Office was driving westbound on the 1800 block of Taylor Road. This is a dark area in unincorporated Volusia County; there are no businesses or private homes alongside the road and there are no streetlights around.

There is a long bend in this stretch of road and as Dep. Woell was following a line of two or three cars near this curve, one car pulled completely off the road and onto the grassy shoulder. There was no other abnormal driving pattern and this maneuver did not affect the other vehicles. There was no testimony that any of the other vehicles had to brake or swerve.

Dep. Woell pulled alongside the stopped car, between the wood line and the passenger side of the car. He did not turn on his police siren or any flashing lights and did not get on a public address system. There was only one occupant, the driver, who turned out to be the Defendant. Dep. Woell said he pulled over out of a concern for the motorist to make sure everything was all right.

According to Dep. Woell, as he looked over at the Defendant, the Defendant was just staring straight ahead. The Deputy thought it unusual that a driver would not acknowledge his presence, seeing as how he was in a marked police car, so he pointed a flashlight into the car. At that time, the Defendant rolled down the passenger's side window and stared at the police officer. Dep. Woell asked if he was okay and he claimed the Defendant looked down to the passenger's side floorboard area and said something incoherent. Dep. Woell noted that the Defendant was alert, conscious, and was not slumped over and the Deputy made no mention of seeing any visible injury. On cross-examination, Dep. Woell also testified he saw that the Defendant had bloodshot eyes and that he had a hunch the Defendant might be impaired. He conceded that there were no other signs of impairment.

In order to explain his subsequent actions, Dep. Woell claimed that his original concerns for the driver had not dissipated. Dep. Woell thought, without clearly articulating why, that the Defendant was acting in an abnormal manner. He mentioned several scenarios he had been involved in, including situations where a driver was having a panic attack, an adverse reaction to medication, or a medical emergency such as a stroke, but never linked any prior experience with this particular driver's behavior.

The Defendant testified that he pulled off the road since he was lost. He was staring at the UPS navigation system set up in the middle of his dashboard when a car pulled alongside him and someone shined a flashlight into his car and yelled for him to roll down his window. Once he complied, he was asked if he was okay and he replied that he was fine. He surmises he did not say it loud enough to be clearly heard.

Dep. Woell decided to put his vehicle in reverse and now park behind the Defendant's car. He did not put on any takedown or flashing lights, but did turn on rear flashing blue lights to warn other traffic of his presence and they most likely would have been noticeable by the Defendant on this dark road. As the Deputy approached the driver's side window, the window was already rolled down. Dep. Woell asked the Defendant to turn off his car and to provide his driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. Dep. Woell said he began noticing several signs of impairment including the odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The Defendant had a great deal of difficulty in finding his driver's license. He claimed he could not find his wallet three times before realizing he had his wallet on him.

The Deputy returned to his own vehicle and began running the information, including performing a warrants check. According to the police reports, the first time of contact with the driver was at 11:10 p.m. Having now seen signs of impairment which led him to believe a DUI investigation was appropriate, Dep. Woell called for back-up at 11:28 p.m. The shift supervisor, Sgt. Amendolare, arrived about 10 minutes later, at 11:39 p.m., and the DUI investigation began.

Dep. Woell had the experience and background to have started the DUI investigation on his own, but testified several factors led him to call for assistance for safety reasons: the dark area where the two vehicles were parked and the bend in the road next to where they were located; the lack of a flat surface to conduct field sobriety exercises [FSEs] except for the road itself since the grassy shoulder was sloped downward; the need for another police car to block traffic if they were going to do FSEs at the scene; and the relative size of the Defendant compared to Dep. Woell.

The defense argues that there was an improper seizure along the side of the road first by shining the flashlight into the Defendant's car and then by parking behind the car and approaching the driver's side window and making direct commands. Secondly, the defense argues that even if there was a valid stop, there was an unlawful detention given the time between the first contact and when the DUI investigation began, around 28 minutes later.

The State initially argued that the defense did not present evidence to show standing and that they did not meet their initial burden of proof under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190 (g)(3) which requires, in a motion to suppress, “. . . the defendant shall present evidence supporting the defendant's position and the state may offer rebuttal evidence.”

The Court took judicial notice of the court file and the allegations in the motion to suppress to find that there was no search warrant issued in this case. See Fla. Stat. § 90.202(6) (court may take judicial notice of the court file). Once that finding is made, the burden is the on the prosecution to prove the validity of the police's actions under the Fourth Amendment. See State v. Hinton, 305 So. 2d 804 (4th DCA 1975); State v. Schubert, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 782a (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Co. Ct., Dec. 12, 2015); and State v. Dawkins, Donaldson, et al, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 170a (Fla. 4th Jud. Cir., Duval Co. Ct., Oct. 23, 2012).

All warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967). The burden is on the State to prove the validity of a search by clear and convincing evidence. State v. Thompson, 72 So. 3d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D2236a].

Did Dep. Woell make proper initial contact with the Defendant and, if that was characterized as an encounter, when did that contact change from an encounter to an investigatory stop? Was there a legitimate reason for that change in status at the time it became an investigatory stop?

The Florida Supreme Court described three distinct types of police-citizen contacts and they are often fluid situations. “The first level is considered a consensual encounter and involves only minimal police contact. During a consensual encounter a citizen may either voluntarily comply with a police officer's requests or choose to ignore them. Because the citizen is free to leave during a consensual encounter, constitutional safeguards are not invoked.” Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185, 186 (Fla. 1993). The second level is “an investigatory stop.” See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). For a police officer to lawfully detain a citizen, “an investigatory stop requires a well-founded, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Mere suspicion is not enough to support a stop.” Popple, Id. at 186. The third level “involves an arrest which must be supported by probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed.” Id.

The fact that Dep. Woell pulled alongside the Defendant's parked car did not automatically create a traffic stop. See State v. Wimbush, 668 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) [21 Fla. L. Weekly D506b] and State v. Carley, 633 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). He did not use lights or siren and in no manner direct the Defendant to pull over.

In most DUI cases, a traffic stop is made because the officer has probable cause that a traffic infraction has occurred or the officer has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See State v. Wimberly, 988 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly D1856a] and Origi v. State, 912 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D2302a]. There is also a justifiable reason for a traffic stop if there is “. . . a legitimate concern for the safety of the motoring public [which] can warrant a brief investigatory stop to determine whether a driver is ill, tired, or driving under the influence in situations less suspicious than that required for other types of criminal behavior.” State, Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. DeShong, 603 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

Moreover, a police officer has a responsibility to make a well-being check if there is a reason to be concerned for the safety of a citizen, whether they are in a car or not. “It is well recognized that police officers may conduct welfare checks and that such checks are considered consensual encounters that do not involve constitutional implications.” Dermio v. State, 112 So. 3d 551, 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D776a]. See also Blice v. State, 825 So. 2d 447, 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly D1705a] (“Not knowing whether he was ill, intoxicated, or merely asleep, the officers were duty-bound to investigate and to render assistance if needed. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of their duty.”); Gentles v. State, 50 So. 3d 1192, 1198-9 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D2900a] (“In keeping with such community caretaking responsibilities, [an officer] could properly check the defendant's status and condition to determine whether he needed any assistance or aid. This type of limited contact has been deemed a reasonable and prudent exercise of an officer's duty to protect the safety of citizens.”, citing to Lightbourne v. State, 438 So. 2d 380, 388 (Fla. 1983)); Greider v. State, 977 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly D949b]; Vitale v. State, 946 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D164a] (“[T]he Fourth Amendment does not bar police officers from making warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid . . . .”, citing to Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392-93, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 57 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1978); and State v. Sooy, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 997b (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir., Volusia Cty. Ct., Aug. 3, 2006).

The facts in the instant case, like the fact patterns in Greider, Gentles, and Dermio, show an encounter continuum between an officer and a defendant. Given the time of night and the isolated location where the Defendant pulled off the road, Dep. Woell had a legitimate reason, if not a duty, to pull alongside the Defendant and make sure everything was all right. A wide gamut of reasons from the minor to the serious could be involved when a driver pulls off the road: mechanical problems with the vehicle, a medical emergency, wanting to take or make a phone call or respond to a text, a lost contact lens, or being lost and wanting to get one's bearings are just a few of the possibilities.

Shining a flashlight into the vehicle or even telling the Defendant to roll down the window did not necessarily convert the initial encounter into an investigatory stop. See Dermio, id; Wimbush, id.; State v. Goodwin, 36 So. 3d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D1289b]; Blake v. State, 939 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) [31 Fla. L. Weekly D2510a]; Pacheco v. State, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 255a (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., Nov. 9, 2012); and State v. Evans, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 451a (Fla. 18th Jud. Cir., Brevard Cty. Ct., Jan. 28, 2014).

Once Dep. Woell saw that the Defendant was conscious and able to make a response to his inquiry regarding whether he was all right, even if it was poorly done, there should have been more of an effort to discern if there was truly a concern for the Defendant's safety before taking the next steps. The Defendant had done nothing illegal. He had pulled off the road in a proper fashion and had not affected other traffic. He was able to roll down his window and respond to the officer, albeit incoherently in the Deputy's view. There was no visible injury, no blood or vomit. The Defendant was alert and conscious. Tellingly, the Deputy said, while being cross-examined, that he saw (from a decent distance) that the Defendant had bloodshot eyes (the cause of which could be from many reasons) and that he had a hunch the driver was impaired.

The State relied on Dermio, id., but there are many distinguishing factors that led the Second DCA to find that opening the driver's door in that case did not transform that encounter into a stop. The driver/defendant in that case was parked in a bar parking lot at 3:30 a.m. with the engine running and the lights on. The driver appeared to be asleep and was only awakened by the officer's tapping a flashlight onto the car window. The officer made three distinct attempts to get a coherent response from the driver before taking the further action of opening the door out of a concern for the driver's safety. As pointed out in Dermio, “. . . the deputy's concern for Dermio's safety in this case had not yet been alleviated because Dermio continued to be incoherent and ‘out of it'.” [emphasis added] Id. at 556. Dep. Woell, by contrast, had just seen the Defendant driving properly and only made one attempt to check on his welfare. As mentioned earlier, there are a plethora of legitimate reasons why a driver may pull over in the same manner as the Defendant.

In Greider, id., an officer approached a legally parked car that had towels covering both the passenger and driver's windows of the car, concealing the interior as if they were curtains. The officer had a safety concern and approached the passenger's side to see the occupant(s). The driver rolled down the passenger's window and said all was fine. Even though his concern for the occupant's welfare was dispelled, the officer went around to the driver's side and ordered the driver to roll down that window. “We do not ignore [the officer's] testimony that he possessed suspicions regarding the unusual circumstances of the towels covering the windows, even after he had been assured all was well. However, a suspicion, by itself, may reflect well on the officer's instincts but it does not meet the Fourth Amendment's requirement of ‘at least reasonable suspicion that the individual seized is engaged in wrongdoing.' Here, there was no evidence of criminal activity. This event was a second level citizen encounter, an investigatory stop, undertaken without appropriate legal justification.” Greider, id. at 793, citing to Popple at 186. Even if Dep. Woell had not had his welfare concern completely dispelled, there should have been a greater effort made, at least further inquiry, before pulling behind the Defendant's car, blue warning lights illuminating the dark road, approaching the driver's window, instructing him to turn off his engine, and making requests for license and registration. Just like the defendant in Greider, the Defendant here would not feel free to disregard the officer's command, end the encounter, and drive away. The Florida Supreme Court “. . . has consistently held that a person is seized if, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would conclude that he or she is not free to end the encounter and depart.” Popple, id. at 188, citing to Jacobson v. State, 476 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1985).

In Gentles, id., an officer approached a parked car in a closed mall parking lot inhabited by a driver who appeared asleep. The car's engine was running. The officer awakened the driver and ordered him to turn off the engine. The Fourth DCA found that the officer had not shown a reasonable concern for the driver's safety before telling him to shut off the car. While the officer had a community caretaker function that could allow him to see if the driver needed any assistance, there has to be a specific concern, as opposed to a generalized concern, for the driver's safety to allow this encounter to continue with greater intrusion by the officer. Id., at 1199-1200.

Dep. Woell's testimony causes concern that he made the second approach (by parking behind the Defendant, walking up to the driver's door, and directing him to turn off the car and to provide identification) as not a true welfare check. If he had made more than one inquiry while he was alongside the Defendant, perhaps raised his voice one time to try to get a clearer response, or articulated with more specificity how this particular driver looked to be in some possible distress, this Court's conclusion may have been different. It would be a slippery slope to give an officer carte blanche to use a well-being concern to get around the need for a reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop. “. . . [I]nvestigatory stops based solely upon an inarticulable hunch or unparticularized suspicion are invalid.” Keeling v. State, 929 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) [31 Fla. L. Weekly D1569a].

Based on the finding that the second contact between Dep. Woell and the Defendant was an investigatory stop and not an encounter, the issue about the time of the Defendant's detention on the side of the road before the back-up arrived to begin the DUI investigation is moot.

Based on the circumstances and the case law,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant's Motion to Suppress is GRANTED.



Source: 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 829a

Tuesday, April 04, 2017

Florida Vehicular Homicide Black Box SDM Vehicle Download

Search Warrant for a Vehicle Event Data Recorder / SDM
Do Police Need a Search Warrant
for a Vehicle Event Data Recorder / SDM?

Do Police Need a Search Warrant for a Vehicle Event Data Recorder / SDM?


Tampa, Florida Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, Attorney W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary, Jr. notes that some vehicles have a sensing and diagnostic module ( SDM ), also known as a ''black box.'' Prosecutors alleged recently, data from a Corvette that was downloaded from the black box revealed that a defendant's speed was 103 m.p.h. five seconds before impact and 98 m.p.h. one second before impact. The Speed limit was 40 m.p.h. A recent court ruling noted, ''A search warrant for property may be issued '[w]hen any property constitutes evidence relevant to proving that a felony has been committed.' Section 933.02(3), Fla. Stat. (2006).''

Updated 2017

Another Court has agreed that Florida Police need a search warrant to download the data from a motor vehicle's black box. Search Warrant Required for Vehicle Event Data Recorder . Here is some key information form the update:

Florida DUI Vehicle Event Data Recorder Key Quotes


"An event data recorder is a device installed in a vehicle to record “crash data” or technical vehicle and occupant information for a period of time before, during, and after a crash."

"It is an issue of first impression in Florida whether a warrant is required to search an impounded vehicle’s electronic data recorder or black box."

"17 states have laws addressing event data recorders, which provide under what circumstances the data may be downloaded."

"[T]he constant, unrelenting black box surveillance of driving conditions could contribute to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the recorded data."

Back Ground Story


Courts have held that ''the rate of speed of a vehicle can be firmly shown . . . to be so excessive under the circumstances that to travel that fast under the conditions is by itself a reckless disregard for human life or the safety of persons exposed to the speed.'' The application for the search warrant contained the following:

Accident occurred on a Monday afternoon at 12:48 p.m. in a residential area; Car traveling in excess of 70 m.p.h. in a 40-m.p.h. zone; vehicles traveled one-hundred-twenty-five feet after impact; lack of pre-impact tire marks suggested braking did not occur; and witness heard the gears ''chirp'' as the car accelerated to a faster gear. These facts showing excessive speed in a residential area were enough probable cause to get a search warrant for the car's black box.

These allegations are from court records and the defendant is presumed innocent.


Criminal Traffic Charges? Tell Me Your Story Toll Free 1-877-793-9290 .

Criminal Traffic Charges - SDM Black Box Download

Friday, March 31, 2017

Free Arrest Warrant Service | Check Florida Warrant for Free

Florida Arrest Warrant Search
Need Help Clearing Up a Florida Arrest Warrant? 


Call Casey at 813-222-2220.

Free Service | Use the Arrest Warrant Service to Check for Florida Arrest Warrants

Please note: The database contains Florida warrant information as reported to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement by law enforcement agencies throughout the state and authorized for release to the public. FDLE and the reporting agencies strongly recommend that no citizen take any individual action based on this information. 

Warning:

This information is not to be used as a confirmation that any warrant is active, or as probable cause for an arrest. Information contained herein should not be relied upon for any type of legal action.

Source: http://pas.fdle.state.fl.us/pas/person/displayWantedPersonsSearch.a

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Tampa DUI Bars and Restaurants - Map of Hot Spots

Dine, Dance, and Detained: How to Avoid Tampa DUI Charges - Tips From an Expert 

Hyde Park DUI Lawyer Which Bars are Cops Watching?
Dine, Dance, and Detain
DUI attorneys in Tampa know there are certain locations generally and several bars, specifically that generate much of the DUI traffic stop action for law enforcement agencies. Police are tracking where drivers who have been arrested reported having their last drink. That led us to a study of where police are on most nights.


Which Bars are Cops Watching?


Unfortunately, for the bars on the lists published by the Tampa Tribune, these bar owners cannot control the police or the surveillance of their locations and their customers. Not surprisingly, in general, the neighborhoods close to the Tampa Police Department headquarters are hot spots for DUI arrests. Hyde Park and Ybor City are frequent entries on incident reports according to the media. Best advice - make sure to arrange a ride home.

"Aside from the decision to waive their Miranda rights, the only good that comes of honest answers to these questions will be finding out where drivers can go to increase the probability of an arrest ending the evening."

Video of a driving under the influence traffic law enforcement officer from court proceedings at the Hillsborough County Courthouse told drivers what many already knew - cops watch bar parking lots. Now drivers and visitors to the area can know statistically what geographic areas are targeted and which bars they may be watching.

Avoiding DUIs in Tampa from WF Casey Ebsary Jr 813.222.2220

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

DUI Pasco Lawyer Attorney Florida 813-222-2220

DUI Attorney Pasco County FL
Fighting for You, a Friend, or a Loved One

"Trooper sets records for DUI arrests."

Call 813-222-2220 


What happens to my driver's license after a Pasco County DUI Arrest?


If you refuse to take a breath, blood, or urine test after being arrested for DUI, or if results of your breath test were .08% or above, your license will be suspended unless a written demand for an administrative hearing is filed within 10 days after arrest.  Call 813-222-2220 for help now.

DUI News Update from Pasco County, Florida


Video Florida Highway Patrol Arrest Contest

I continue to be concerned with the game that some police agencies have made out of DUI arrests. Cops in Pasco County Florida set out to break a record of some sort and informed the media that a DUI record was broken. The headline reads: "Trooper sets records for DUI arrests."

Wednesday, March 01, 2017

Video - Come on Vacation Leave on Probation - Spring Break on the Suncoast -

Several colleges and universities have spring breaks that overlap this year. Not only are the universities of Tampa, South Florida, and St. Pete College all on Spring Break on the Suncoast at the same time, there are students arriving to the Tampa Bay area from all over the country.

"seemingly minor charges can result in a 
permanent criminal record"

Come on Vacation Leave on Probation


Police are stepping up enforcement efforts while all the students are here. Many of the roads on the beaches have very low speed limits and expect strict enforcement of all traffic laws, including  speed limits. Here is a video that has been produced to put the word out that police will have a zero tolerance policy towards  some interesting activities that  students may be inclined to try. Do not Come on Vacation Leave on Probation.
 . Previous Tampa Bay Area Spring Break Story follows

Previous Tampa Bay Area Spring Break Story


Here is a story about the types of tactics and criminal charges that police and prosecutors will use. As we previously reported, a "non-discretionary “zero tolerance” policy to encountering and arresting Spring Break visitors. Police are using fairly vague and discretionary charges, such as Disorderly Conduct Florida Statute 877.03. These seemingly minor charges can result in a permanent criminal record. " 

DUI in Polk County Florida - Defense Options

DUI Lawyer Polk County, FL

Polk DUI Attorney

813-222-2220

Charged With Driving Under the Influence? 

Help for You, a Friend, or Loved One





A Polk DUI Lawyer is standing by. DUI / DWI / Drunk Driving is serious charge to have on your driving record in Polk County. You need a serious defense. DUI Defense can be challenging. The police are the main state witnesses. Scientific evidence from the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test or blood tests may be presented against you. Damaging evidence against you may include: the breath test, officer's testimony, and Standard Field Sobriety Tests.


Search Casey’s Huge Polk County Florida DUI Database for Free




W.F. ''Casey Ebsary, Jr.'' is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer and DUI - DWI attorney who helps in Polk County, Florida, has knowledge of these issues, and can help you establish your defense against these and other traffic offenses.

Polk D U I Arrests by the Numbers


We uncovered a report that there are about 1300 to as many as 1600 people arrested each year for DUI in Polk County according to arrest statistics for each Florida County. The most recent traffic citation and DUI Arrest numbers for Polk County are available on our Polk County Florida DUI Law Blog.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Watch out for a #DUI checkpoint.

DUI checkpoints in Tampa, FL
Police Roadblocks for DUI

Traffic Roadblock - Police Roadblocks for DUI


Traffic Roadblocks are in use in Tampa, Florida. Jump to bottom of page for more roadblock coverage and a map. Meanwhile, watch out for a #DUI checkpoint traffic roadblock on Fri, Feb 17 to Sat, Feb 18, near the 7200 block of Adamo Dr. 10 p.m. – 1 a.m.  in Tampa. This spot is conveniently located right near the Hillsborough County Jail on Orient Road in Hillsborough County Florida.

State and federal authorities frequently provide the funding for these operations. Although there are a few DUI arrests, there are frequently arrests for a broad range of criminal charges. We expect arrests for drug crimes, warrants, and minor driver's license issues. Be careful.



More Traffic Checkpoint Information



Tampa DUI Checkpoint Roadblock Police Manual

www.dui2go.com/2014/06/tampa-dui-checkpoint-roadblock-police.html

Officers may occasionally use a motor vehicle checkpoint, commonly referred to as a roadblock, as a lawful means of traffic law enforcement.


Visit to a DUI Checkpoint - Video


www.dui2go.com/2014/01/visit-to-dui-checkpoint-video.html

We visited a DUI Checkpoint to see what was up. Video courtesy of http://duitampabay.com/.

DUI Checkpoint | There's an App For That | Banned

www.dui2go.com/2011/03/dui-checkpoint-theres-app-for-that.html?m=0

Even though a valid DUI Checkpoint must be announced to the public, Congress may try to ban the use of Mobile Device Applications that announce checkpoints.

Wednesday, February 01, 2017

Video in DUI Case Does Not Lie - So Says the Florida Supreme Court

DUI Video, Florida DUI Video Requirements, DHSMV, Court
Video in DUI Case Does Not Lie

Video in DUI Case Does Not Lie 


The Video in DUI Case Does Not Lie - So Says the Florida Supreme Court. A hearing officer virtually ignored discrepancies between a video and the reports and the testimony of a law enforcement officer. The court called shenanigans on the lack of body camera recording that could have been produced, but was not. Below are a few passages from this case, the complete Case is below.

"evidence which is totally contradicted and totally negated and refuted by video evidence of record, is not competent, substantial evidence. "

Video on Youtube in this important case is embedded below. The cop cruises along for over 14 minutes and the driving looks fine. Cop drives past a couple of his buddies in the median and activates his overhead lights. The cop is out of the car and in the video for less that 2 minutes. Video is almost a half-hour long and we never see the citizen out of the car to see or hear if he even appeared or sounded impaired. One of our sources says a Court, "applies correct law by rejecting officer testimony as being competent, substantial evidence when that testimony is contrary to and refuted by objective real-time video evidence . . . ." Florida Law Weekly.

You can skip to about 12:00 minutes to see what the video shows about this allegation of impaired driving. There is no audio in the original (court has made it available here DUI in-car Video of Traffic Stop ) - judge the alleged bad driving for yourself.


DUI Video Case Excerpts:



"evidence which is totally contradicted and  totally negated and refuted by video evidence of record, is not competent, substantial evidence. "

"failed to activate his body camera and microphone during his direct contact"

"Every case involving a license suspension contains a Fourth Amendment analysis of whether there was reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle or probable cause to believe that the driver was in physical control of the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol"

"the real-time video of the events contradicts and refutes the verbal description"


Saturday, January 28, 2017

16 Tips For Surviving Gasparilla Piratefest Invasion

How to Survive Gasparilla Pirate Invasion


Gasparilla Tips
Tampa Gasparilla Tips
for Avoiding Arrests
Tampa Police Department (TPD) used to arrest between 200 and 400 people each Gasparilla on alcohol charges. Now many are issued civil citations for violating the open container law which includes a fine of $75 - $450. In 2012, TPD issued 302 open containers violation civil citations. Tampa Police Department also arrested 8 pirates for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and 27 underage drinking pirates.

Believe it or not, it is possible to enjoy the Gasparilla Pirate Invasion without waking up with a criminal record or regretting your own birth. Tampa Police Department (TPD) is on a mission to protect and serve during this years Gasparilla Festivities. As you are walking around you may feel like someone is watching you.. You aren't just paranoid, "Big Brother" is watching. The Tampa Police Department has been using mobile surveillance camera units put in place to help secure the Republican National Convention last year.

Other Coverage of Gasparilla Pirate Invasion


16 Tips For Surviving Gasparilla Piratefest Invasion

www.dui2go.com/2013/01/surviving-gasparilla-pirate-invasion.html



 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User

Jan 30, 2016 - Tampa Police Department (TPD) is on a mission to protect and serve during this yearsGasparilla Festivities. As you are walking around you may feel like someone is watching you.. You aren't just paranoid, "Big Brother" is watching.

Gasparilla Arrests - Updated

www.dui2go.com/2016/01/gasparilla-arrests.html



 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User

Feb 2, 2016 - According to the Hillsborough County Sheriff's records there were few arrests atGasparilla 2016.

Tampa Attorney BUI | Boating Under Influence | Gasparilla Arrest

www.dui2go.com/2011/01/tampa-bui-boating-under-influence.html



 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User

Jan 23, 2014 - Call 813-222-2220. Tampa Attorney BUI | Boating Under Influence | Tampa Lawyer BUI |Gasparilla Arrest. tampa attorney bui.

Gasparilla Arrest or Notice to Appear Get Affordable Help From an ...

www.dui2go.com/2011/01/gasparilla-arrest-or-notice-to-appear.html



 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User

Jan 29, 2016 - Is there a history of arrests at the Gasparilla Pirate Parade? In 2010 there were 5 BUI Boating Under the Influence Arrests. The Police, Sheriff's ...

Gasparilla Wet Zone Map 

www.dui2go.com/2016/01/gasparilla-wet-zone-map-parade.html

 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User

Jan 29, 2016 - Gasparilla Wet Zone Map - Gasparilla Parade Map - Legal Alcohol Zone Map.

Believe it or not, it is possible to enjoy the Gasparilla Pirate Invasion without waking up with a criminal record or regretting your own birth. Tampa Police Department (TPD) is on a mission to protect and serve during this years Gasparilla Festivities. As you are walking around you may feel like someone is watching you.. You aren't just paranoid, "Big Brother" is watching. The Tampa Police Department has been using mobile surveillance camera units put in place to help secure the Republican National Convention last year.

Tampa Police believe the cameras will help to stop fights and find lost children.  American Civil Liberties Union of Florida president Mike Pheneger said,"It sounds like (Tampa Police Chief Jane Castor) wants to use them [the cameras] for a set of problems that haven't materialized in previous Gasparilla parades." The Tampa Police will also use Bobcat Golf Carts, bicycles, Segways, and horses.

So here are some guidelines to follow so you wont need legal representation.

Gasparilla Wet Zone Map 2016
Gasparilla Wet Zone Map
2016
Strictly Enforced By the TPD:
  • Must be 21 or older to consume alcohol
  • Open containers only permitted in designated areas
  • Alcohol may not be consumed from kegs or large vessels
  • Must purchase alcohol from vendors
  • Only cans or plastic bottles permitted; no glass or Styrofoam cups or containers
  • Use port-o-lets and other restroom facilities, no public urination
  • No Fighting
  • No Property damage
  • No Trespassing - the parade goes through residential neighborhoods be respectful of their private property.
  • No nudity or flashing (not even in exchange for beads)
  • No Public intoxication
  • No Driving under the influence
  • No motorized vehicles or bicycles
  • No Weapons
  • No Illegal drugs
  • No coolers
Some Good Ideas:
  • Park Remotely - There will be plenty of parking at Raymond James Stadium with a shuttle to the parade route. There is also parking in the Ybor City Garage and take the street car trolley. Some will park in downtown Tampa and Channelside garages or parking lots.
  • Drink water. Standing outside can dehydrate you and alcohol won't help.
  • Eat before you start drinking.
  • Assign a Designated Driver or plan on taking a taxi home.
  • Don't throw away recyclables look for recycling receptacles.

Source: http://www.tampabay.com/news/police-will-watch-gasparilla-crowd-with-cameras-bought-for-rnc/1270946

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Jose Fernandez Video - Florida Baseball Star - Drunk in Boating Crash

Florida BUI Boating Under the Influence
Boating Under the Influence
Florida

Boating Under the Influence Video

 

Boating Under the Influence of cocaine and a blood alcohol level of .147 says CNN today. According to the video, Baseball superstar Jose Fernandez was involved in a boat crash in Florida. Coroner reports blood alcohol of .147 and presence of cocaine. No news on who was driving the boat. Two others on the boat were also killed when the boat hit a Florida jetty in the middle of the night.

There is no evidence yet proving who was driving. That is a significant hurdle for families seeking justice in the civil case.






Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Refusal of a Breath Test | What do police officers do when they are arrested for DUI?

Refusal of a Breath Test

Refusal of a Breath Test


Below is video from inside a jail where a cop is administering Florida's Implied Consent warning given prior to requesting a suspect to take a breath test on an Intoxilyzer breath machine.

Breath Test Refusal Update


What do police officers do when they are arrested for DUI and asked to take a breath test or perform Field Sobriety Exercises?

We have again found out what cops do when THEY are arrested for DUI. Here is an update from a 2016 article: " In the 2016 arrest report, a Pinellas sheriff's deputy wrote that Green's eyes appeared "glossy" and his balance unsteady. He refused to submit to a field sobriety test or a Breathalyzer test to measure his blood alcohol-level."

In the past ten years, this is one topic of interest to many of our viewers.  The breath test is voluntary, if the arresting officer properly informs suspects of their options. One court ruled that where the cop misinformed a DUI suspect that he would be eligible for hardship license if he submitted to breath test. Cop also told him he would not be eligible if he refused the test.

Due to misinformation, it could not be proven that suspect's decision to submit to test was not influenced by misinformation; state has failed to prove that submission to test was voluntary. Motion to Suppress test results granted. Source: FLW Supp 1703Perd



Refusal of a Breath Test 


When police fail to properly inform suspects of their options under the implied consent law, a defense may be available for DUI  Florida. Under Florida DUI law refusal to submit to a breath, urine, or blood test can be used as admissible as evidence in a DUI criminal case. Let's go behind the scenes and into an interrogation room at a local jail where a DUI cop is informing the suspect of his options.




DUI Video  Courtesy of http://www.DUIFla.com.

Florida Law Requires: "The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to any lawful test of his or her breath will result in the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 1 year for a first refusal, or for a period of 18 months if the driving privilege of such person has been previously suspended as a result of a refusal to submit to such a test or tests, and shall also be told that if he or she refuses to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath and his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for a prior refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood, he or she commits a misdemeanor in addition to any other penalties.

The refusal to submit to a chemical or physical breath test upon the request of a law enforcement officer as provided in this section is admissible into evidence in any criminal proceeding." 316.1932 (1)(a)1.a. (Tests for alcohol, chemical substances, or controlled substances; implied consent; refusal.)