Florida DUI Book

FLORIDA DUI BOOK – THE 10-DAY COUNTDOWN

If you have been arrested for DUI in Florida, the most important fact you need to know is this: you have 10 days to act. 10 years ago I wrote a DUI Defense Book. Now, in The 10-Day Countdown, I break down exactly how to defend a Florida DUI case from the moment the handcuffs come off to the courtroom battle that follows. As a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer and founder of https://dui2go.com/, I have built my career on challenging DUI stops, breath test procedures, refusal allegations, and administrative suspensions under Florida law.

You can review my professional credentials through my Florida Bar profile at https://www.floridabar.org/ and legal directory listings such as Justia and Avvo, where my DUI defense work is detailed and publicly accessible. This book is not theory. It is strategy. It is built on decades of litigation experience, sworn officer cross-examinations, Intoxilyzer challenges, and constitutional motions to suppress. If you are searching for a Florida DUI lawyer who understands the science, the statutes, and the courtroom psychology behind these cases, this book is your starting point. The clock is real. The defense is deliberate. And the first move is yours.

A Florida Lawyer’s Guide to Beating the DUI Odds

By W.F. Casey Ebsary

Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer

Introduction: A Word from the Author of the Florida DUI Book

To My Future Client,

If you are holding this Florida DUI Book, you are likely going through one of the most stressful periods of your life. I know the feeling. The prosecution wants you to believe that your case is an open-and-shut matter of “numbers” and “police reports.” I am here to tell you that they are wrong.

As a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, I’ve spent my career finding the cracks in their “perfect” cases. Whether it’s a breathalyzer machine that hasn’t been calibrated, an officer who skipped a step in a roadside exercise, or a stop that violated your Constitutional rights, there is always a path forward.

At my firm, dui2go, we don’t just “process” cases; we deconstruct them. We use the same intensity I bring to my cycling trips—focus, endurance, and a refusal to quit—to fight for your driver’s license and your reputation. In this book, I’ve laid out 100 of the most critical questions I’ve answered over the decades. We are in this together. Let’s get to work.

Sincerely,

W.F. Casey Ebsary

Attorney at Law

dui2go.com

About the Florida DUI Book Author

When I am not in the courtroom at the Edgecomb Courthouse or reviewing body-cam footage at my office on West Cleveland Street, you can almost always find me on two wheels. As a dedicated cyclist, I spend a great deal of my time on the Pinellas Trail. Whether I’m navigating a long endurance ride or heading out on one of my e-bikes, cycling is more than just a hobby for me—it is a philosophy.

In cycling, there is a concept called “The Line.” It is the most efficient, safest path through a difficult curve. Finding that line requires focus, a deep understanding of your surroundings, and the technical skill to stay upright when the road gets rough.

I bring that same mindset to my legal practice.

Defending a DUI is an endurance sport. It requires a meticulous eye for detail—much like checking your tire pressure and gear ratios before a century ride. Just as a cyclist must be aware of every pothole and blind spot, a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer must be aware of every procedural error and constitutional violation in a police report.

Living in Seminole and working in Tampa, I see the beauty of our community every day. But I also see how quickly a single interaction with law enforcement can derail a person’s life. When I take on your case, I am looking for “The Line”—the strategic path that leads to the best possible outcome for your future.

Whether I am white-water rafting in California or fighting a high-stakes felony charge in a Florida courtroom, I believe in preparation, momentum, and the refusal to coast. When you hire me, you aren’t just getting a lawyer; you are getting a teammate who understands that the only way to finish strong is to start with a plan.

I’ll see you on the trail—and I’ll see you in court.

W.F. Casey Ebsary Attorney, Cyclist, Advocate

Table of Contents

THE 10-DAY COUNTDOWN
A Florida Lawyer’s Guide to Beating the DUI Odds 1
By W.F. Casey Ebsary 1
PART I: THE DEFENSE FOUNDATION 6
Introduction: A Word from the Author 6
Chapter 1: The Critical 10-Day Window 7
Why the 10 Days Matter 7
The Moment the Clock Starts 8
The 10-Day Strategy Table 9
What I Do Immediately in a DUI Case 9
First, I File the Formal Review Request 9
Second, I Subpoena the Arresting Officer 10
Administrative vs. Criminal: Two Separate Battles 10
Chart: What Happens If You Miss the 10-Day Deadline 11
The Strategic Value of the Formal Review Hearing 11
Flow Chart: The First 30 Days After Arrest 12
What If You Already Missed the Deadline? 12
Frequently Asked Questions About the 10-Day Window 13
Does requesting the Formal Review guarantee I keep my license? 13
What is the difference between a Formal Review and a Waiver Review? 13
Can I get a hardship license if I request a Formal Review? 13
What happens if the officer does not appear? 13
Embedded Video Resource 14
My Philosophy on the First 10 Days 14
Final Thoughts: The Clock Is Real 15
Chapter 2: The Anatomy of a Stop 16
Why Every Florida DUI Case Begins With One Question: Why Were You Stopped? 16
The Constitutional Foundation: Reasonable Suspicion 16
“Driving or Actual Physical Control” 17
The Stop Comes First 18
Pretextual Stops: Fishing Expeditions 18
Chart: Common DUI Stop Justifications 19
The “Failure to Maintain Lane” Myth 20
Anonymous Tips and DUI Stops 20
Flow Chart: From Stop to Arrest 21
The Expansion of the Stop 21
Bodycam and Dashcam: The Silent Witness 22
Actual Physical Control: Parked Vehicle Cases 22
Frequently Asked Questions About DUI Stops 23
Can police stop me just because it is late at night? 23
If I admit I had a drink, does that justify the stop? 23
What if I turned from a closed bar parking lot? 23
Can a minor equipment issue justify a stop? 23
The Motion to Suppress 23
My Approach to DUI Stops 24
Final Thoughts: Every DUI Case Begins With a Flashing Light 25
Chapter 3: Accidents and the “Switching Hats” Rule 26
When a Crash Investigation Turns Into a Criminal DUI Case 26
Why Accident Cases Are Different 26
The Accident Report Privilege: Our Shield 27
The “Switching Hats” Moment 28
Table: Crash Investigation vs. Criminal Investigation 28
How This Plays Out in Real Cases 29
The Miranda Component 29
Chart: Common Suppression Arguments in Accident DUIs 30
The Compelled Statement Problem 31
Accident Cases and DUI2Go Strategy 31
Flow Chart: Accident DUI Timeline 32
Frequently Asked Questions About Accident DUIs 32
If I admit drinking during a crash investigation, is that automatically admissible? 32
What counts as a “hat switch”? 32
Do Miranda rights apply at every crash scene? 33
What if the officer never clearly switched roles? 33
Video Resources and Further Reading 33
Why This Chapter Matters 33
Final Thoughts: Timing Is Everything 34
PART II: THE SCIENCE AND THE COURTROOM 35
Chapter 4: The Truth About the Blow 35
What the Intoxilyzer 8000 Doesn’t Tell the Jury 35
The Machine Behind the Number 36
The Breath-Test Vulnerability Table 36
Mouth Alcohol: The Hidden Contaminant 37
The Partition Ratio Problem 38
The 20-Minute Rule 39
Maintenance Logs: The Paper Trail 39
Chart: How I Audit a Breath Case 40
Duplicate Sample Requirement 40
Medical Conditions and Breath Testing 41
Flow Chart: From Arrest to Breath Result 41
Frequently Asked Questions About Breath Testing 42
If I blew over .08, is the case hopeless? 42
Can maintenance issues really invalidate a test? 42
What if I have GERD? 42
Does refusing the test avoid these issues? 42
The Psychological Impact of the Number 42
My Approach to Breath Cases 43
Final Thoughts: The Machine Is Not the Judge 44
Chapter 5: The Truth About Refusal 45
Why Saying “No” Is Not the End of the Case 45
What the Officer Must Prove in a Refusal Case 45
Administrative Consequences of Refusal 46
The Refusal Warning: What Must Be Said 47
Table: Refusal Case Vulnerabilities 48
Was It Really a Refusal? 48
The Strategic Reality of Refusal 49
The Criminal Refusal Charge (Second Refusal) 50
Flow Chart: Refusal Case Timeline 50
The Jury Instruction Problem 50
Frequently Asked Questions About Refusal 51
Is refusal worse than blowing over .08? 51
Can I change my mind after refusing? 51
Does asking for an attorney count as refusal? 51
Can medical issues justify refusal? 51
My Perspective on Refusal Cases 52
Final Thoughts: Refusal Is Not the End 52
Chapter 6: High Stakes—CDL and Professional Licenses 54
PART III: THE 100 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS 55
PART IV: FINAL RESOURCES 81
Glossary of Terms 81
About the Author 82
APPENDIX: THE EMERGENCY CHECKLIST 83
THE DISCIPLINE OF THE DEFENSE: AN AUTHOR’S NOTE 84

Florida DUI Book 2026 Defense Manual

A DUI arrest in the Tampa Bay area is more than a simple traffic ticket; it is a life-altering event that initiates a complex series of legal, administrative, and scientific challenges. For those facing these charges, the path forward is often obscured by confusing terminology and high-stakes deadlines. This guide is designed to serve as a comprehensive roadmap, synthesizing decades of legal expertise into a single, actionable resource.

A Legacy of Specialized Information: The Evolution of Our Resources

The digital landscape of Florida DUI defense has evolved significantly over the last two decades. Long before the streamlined efficiency of dui2go.com, my practice utilized duitampabay.com as the primary educational hub for Florida drivers.

duitampabay.com was established with a singular mission: to provide a transparent look into the “black box” of DUI prosecution. It served as a repository for deep-dive technical documents and procedural guides that were otherwise difficult for the public to access. As our practice expanded and digital standards shifted, the focus moved to the more mobile-responsive and user-friendly architecture of dui2go.com, but the core knowledge base remains rooted in that early work.

Domain History and Longevity

The depth of resources available today is built on a quarter-century of digital advocacy and case archiving:

• duitampabay.com: This domain was registered in 2000. As of 2026, the site is 26 years old, representing one of the oldest and most established digital resources for DUI defense in the Tampa Bay area.
• dui2go.com: Registered in 2010, this site is now 16 years old. It was designed to modernize the delivery of legal defense information, offering specialized tools like breath alcohol calculators and video walkthroughs of the court process.

For those conducting historical research or looking for the foundational logic behind Florida’s current DUI statutes, several key pages from that legacy archive remain essential touchstones:

• DUIFLA_DUI_Florida/Typical-Florida-DUI-What-Happened-To-Car.html: A detailed breakdown of the immediate logistics following an arrest, focusing on vehicle impoundment protocols.
• Qualifications.htm: An overview of the board-certified expertise and former prosecutor perspective that informs our current defense strategies.
• DUIFLA_DUI_Florida/Florida-DUI-Breath-Test.html: An early analysis of the Intoxilyzer technology that set the stage for our modern technical challenges.

I. The Dual-Track System: Administrative vs. Criminal

In Florida, a DUI arrest triggers two completely separate cases that run on parallel tracks. Success in one does not automatically guarantee success in the other.

1. The Administrative Track (DHSMV)

This track is managed by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV). It deals exclusively with your driver’s license.

• The 10-Day Rule: From the moment of your arrest, you have exactly 10 days to request a “Formal Review Hearing.” If you fail to act within this window, your license suspension becomes automatic and much harder to contest.
• The Goal: To invalidate the suspension or secure a hardship permit (Business Purpose Only) that allows you to maintain your livelihood.

2. The Criminal Track (Court System)

This track is managed by the State Attorney’s Office and the judicial system. It deals with criminal penalties, including fines, probation, and potential incarceration.

• The Goal: To seek a dismissal, a reduction of charges (such as to “Reckless Driving”), or an acquittal at trial.

II. Technical Defense: The Science of the Breath Test

Florida currently utilizes the Intoxilyzer 8000 as its evidentiary breath-testing instrument. While the state presents these results as infallible, they are subject to numerous mechanical and procedural errors.

Table 1: Common Technical Challenges

III. 2026 Florida DUI Statutory Penalties

The penalties for a DUI conviction in Florida are strictly governed by Florida Statute § 316.193. These are mandatory minimums.

Table 2: Mandatory Minimum Penalties (Standard First and Second Offenses)

IV. Frequently Asked Questions (Q&A)

1. Can I refuse a roadside breath test? In Florida, you can refuse, but under “Implied Consent,” a first refusal results in a 1-year license suspension.
2. What is “Actual Physical Control”? You don’t have to be driving to be arrested. If you are in the driver’s seat with the keys, you are in “control.”
3. Does a DUI conviction ever go away? No. In Florida, a DUI conviction cannot be sealed or expunged; it remains for 75 years.
4. What if I have GERD or Acid Reflux? GERD is a recognized factor that can cause “mouth alcohol” to contaminate a sample, though I cannot state with 100% certainty how a specific judge will rule.
5. What is the “10-Day Rule”? It is the strict deadline to challenge your license suspension with the DHSMV.
6. Can a DUI be reduced? Yes, often to “Reckless Driving” via negotiation.
7. Do I have to do the roadside “gymnastics”? No, these exercises are voluntary in Florida.
8. Will I go to jail? For a first offense with no crash, many receive probation instead of jail, though I cannot guarantee results with 100% certainty.
9. What is an Ignition Interlock? A breath-testing device wired to your car. Mandatory for second offenses and high-BAC first offenses.
10. How long does the court case take? Most Florida DUI cases are resolved within 4 to 9 months.

Conclusion: Take Control of Your Defense

A DUI arrest is a high-pressure situation, but it is not the end of the road. By understanding the legacy of defense strategies that began with duitampabay.com and have been refined at dui2go.com, you can approach your case with the technical and legal clarity required for a successful outcome.

Contact Information:

• Bio: Learn more about William Frederick Ebsary, Jr.
• Consultation: Request a Case Evaluation

Understand the Penalties

A second driving under the influence arrest in Florida significantly ups the stakes. If you are convicted of a repeat offense, you face aggressive prosecution and strict statutory penalties. However, a common question many drivers face when entering the legal system for a second time is:

Avoiding Jail Time for a Second DUI

Under Florida law, the necessity of jail time boils down to a strict statutory window:

• Outside the 5-Year Window: If your second DUI arrest occurs more than 5 years after your first conviction, there is no mandatory minimum jail sentence. While a judge still retains the legal discretion to sentence you to up to 9 months in jail, an experienced defense attorney can build a case advocating for alternative penalties to avoid confinement altogether.
• Within the 5-Year Window: If the second offense occurs within 5 years of the prior conviction, Florida law mandates a strict 10-day mandatory minimum jail sentence.
• The Treatment Alternative: To avoid serving those 10 days behind bars, a driver may petition the court to enter a secure, court-approved residential treatment facility. It is critical to note that not all judges or jurisdictions will approve this alternative, making an experienced trial lawyer essential to presenting the request effectively.

Is a Second DUI a Felony in Florida?

Generally speaking, a second driving under the influence charge is classified as a misdemeanor. However, the state can instantly elevate a second offense to a felony charge if the incident involves an accident resulting in serious bodily injury to another person or a fatality.

Additionally, if a person accumulates three or more DUI offenses within a 10-year period, the third offense becomes a third-degree felony, carrying a maximum penalty of up to 5 years in state prison.

Standard Probation for Repeat Offenses

If convicted of a second DUI in Florida, a judge will typically sentence the individual to 12 months of probation.

During this 12-month period, you must strictly adhere to court-ordered conditions, which consistently include mandatory DUI school, counseling or substance abuse evaluations, vehicle impoundment, and the required installation of an ignition interlock device on your vehicle’s dashboard.

Video Transcript

**** …and unless the prior DUI occurred within 5 years, there is not a minimum mandatory sentence. Also included in the sentence is an ignition interlock, counseling, and a vehicle impound.

**** How can a driver avoid jail time for a second DUI in Florida? First of all, there’s no mandatory jail sentence for a second DUI unless it occurred within 5 years of the previous DUI. One can avoid jail by seeking secure treatment in an approved facility by the court—not all courts will approve that, however. The 10-day sentence that is a mandatory minimum for a second DUI within 5 years can be avoided by seeking treatment in a secure treatment facility.

**** Is a second DUI in Florida a felony? Generally, it’s not. However, in the event serious bodily injury occurs, the case can be charged as a felony charge.

**** How long is probation for a second DUI in Florida? Typically, a second DUI has a sentence of 12 months probation.

Facing a Repeat DUI Charge in the Tampa Bay Area?

A second arrest does not mean a mandatory conviction is set in stone. Every piece of evidence—from the law enforcement stop to the calibration of the breathalyzer—can be challenged. As a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Specialist and former prosecutor, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. knows how to look for structural flaws in the state’s case to protect your freedom and pursue alternatives to jail.

• Learn more About Our Trial Record
• Contact Our Tampa Office Directly to evaluate your options and discuss alternative sentencing.

Call Casey at 813-222-2220

Call 813-222-2220

Tesla Data in DUI Cases: How Your Car Becomes Evidence in Court

Modern Tesla vehicles are essentially rolling computers, continuously capturing and storing an unprecedented volume of driving telemetry. While this technology provides advanced safety features and semi-autonomous driving convenience, it also creates a permanent digital footprint of your every move. If you are arrested for driving under the influence in Florida while operating a Model 3, Model Y, Model S, or Model X, that digital footprint can instantly be turned into the state’s most powerful witness.

In modern traffic court, prosecutors are no longer relying solely on an officer’s subjective roadside observations or breathalyzer percentages. The State Attorney’s Office can actively seek to subpoena or extract your Tesla’s onboard data logs to build a highly technical narrative of impairment or actual physical control.

Understanding the sheer scope of information your vehicle records—and how an aggressive legal defense can challenge its admissibility—is critical to protecting your liberty in a high-tech legal landscape.

The Digital Evidence Locker Inside Your Tesla

Tesla vehicles utilize a sophisticated Event Data Recorder (EDR) alongside an array of external and internal cameras connected to the car’s autopilot system. In the event of a sudden braking maneuver, a traffic stop, or an accident, your vehicle archives specific metrics that a tech-savvy prosecutor can attempt to introduce into evidence:

Precise Velocity and Braking Patterns: Onboard computers track exact acceleration rates and brake pedal pressure down to the millisecond. If the state claims you were speeding or driving erratically, they will try to use these logs to verify the officer’s subjective claims.
Steering and Lane-Keep Inputs: Your vehicle logs structural steering wheel torque and localized lane-positioning. Prosecutors can look for patterns of weaving or delayed steering adjustments to argue that your normal faculties were actively impaired.
Autopilot and FSD Engagement Status: A common defense tactic in modern traffic stops is arguing that the vehicle was operating autonomously. However, Tesla logs explicitly track whether Autopilot or Full Self-Driving (FSD) was active, and whether the driver’s hands were detected on the wheel, establishing who—or what—had actual physical control of the car.
Sentry Mode and Dashcam Footage: Tesla’s external cameras provide high-definition, multi-angle video recordings. While this video can sometimes clear a driver of erratic behavior, it can also capture physical stumbles or poor balance immediately following a traffic stop.
The Privacy Protection Rule: Law enforcement cannot simply plug a diagnostic tool into your Tesla’s media control unit at the roadside to pull data on a whim. Under the Fourth Amendment and federal privacy statutes, the state must typically secure a formal, judge-signed search warrant or obtain explicit driver consent to legally extract structural data logs or internal video files.

Technical Defense: Challenging Automotive Telemetry in Court

Just because a prosecutor introduces a spreadsheet of digital vehicle logs or a sequence of telemetric data does not mean that evidence is infallible or automatically admissible in a Florida courtroom. An experienced defense strategy focuses on systematically picking apart the state’s high-tech narrative:

Challenging Data Chain of Custody: Electronic evidence must be handled under strict forensic protocols. If law enforcement or state technicians used uncertified extraction software or failed to properly preserve the digital files, the data can be rendered vulnerable to a Motion to Suppress.
Exposing System Calibration Flaws: Like any complex software environment, vehicle sensors can experience latent glitches, software bugs, or physical miscalibrations caused by road debris or minor wear. A defensive audit analyzes whether the recorded telemetry accurately reflects real-world physics.
Filing Motions to Suppress on Constitutional Grounds: If the arresting agency extracted data files without a valid, narrowly tailored search warrant—or if they exceeded the structural scope of the warrant granted by the court—your attorney can fight to have the entire digital file thrown out of court.

Video Transcript Summary

Florida digital traffic defense analysis highlights the rapidly evolving landscape of high-tech evidence in modern driving under the influence prosecutions. The educational overview explains that modern Tesla vehicles continuously harvest massive blocks of driving telemetry, encompassing exact speed metrics, braking activation, GPS tracking, and Autopilot engagement data alongside multi-camera video logs. The summary concludes by noting that while local state attorneys aggressively target this electronic footprint to prove operational impairment or actual physical control in court, a specialized trial attorney can deploy strategic constitutional motions to actively challenge, discredit, or suppress vehicle data.

Secure a High-Tech Defense for Your Tampa Bay Case

If you have been arrested for a DUI while driving a Tesla in Hillsborough, Pinellas, or Pasco County, your defense needs to look far beyond standard police paperwork. Resolving a case that involves telemetric data requires an analytical, technical understanding of both Florida criminal procedures and modern automotive forensic extraction.

As a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Specialist and former prosecutor with over 30 years of courtroom experience, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. stays at the absolute forefront of digital traffic defense. Our firm systematically deconstructs police procedures, audits electronic vehicle extractions, and fights aggressively to protect your record, your driving privileges, and your freedom.

Read our complete analytical breakdown on Tesla Data in DUI Cases
Learn more About Our Solo Practitioner Background and Board-Certified Trial Credentials
Contact Our Tampa Office Immediately to schedule an urgent review of your pending electronic traffic charges.
Call Casey at 813-222-2220

Tesla Data in DUI Cases: How Your Car Becomes Evidence in Court? Board-Certified criminal trial specialist Casey Ebsary explains how Florida prosecutors use Tesla telemetry, Autopilot status, and video logs in DUI cases, and how defense lawyers challenge this electronic evidence.You can watch our full video analysis detailing how modern vehicular data impact courtroom defense strategies.

The Real Value of Expert Defense

If you have recently been arrested for driving under the influence in the Tampa Bay area, you are likely feeling overwhelmed by a flood of questions, deadlines, and worst-case scenarios. As you look at the looming court dates and the administrative suspension of your driver’s license, the biggest choice standing directly in front of you is whether or not to hire a private DUI defense attorney, or should I just plead guilty and get this nightmare over with.

The Public Defender Misconception: While court-appointed public defenders are excellent, highly capable trial attorneys, their structural caseloads are frequently massive. Furthermore, public defenders are legally barred from representing you at your administrative DMV license suspension hearings. Retaining a private advocate ensures you receive dedicated, individualized focus for both your criminal court case and your driver’s license defense. When I worked as a public defender, I sometimes handled 750 cases. Now, I generally limit my caseload to less than 50.

Hiring a Florida Defense Lawyer: Frequently Asked Question

Technical Defense: Uncovering Police and Machine Errors

A driving under the influence conviction relies on an officer’s subjective interpretations and mechanical calculations. A private defense strategy utilizes advanced scientific and procedural challenges to disrupt the state’s narrative:

Challenging the Initial Traffic Stop: Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer cannot pull you over on a vague hunch. If your attorney can prove via dashcam footage that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop, the judge can order all subsequently gathered evidence thrown out of court.
Exposing Breathalyzer Calibration Flaws: The Intoxilyzer 8000 units used across Florida must comply with strict monthly and annual diagnostic testing rules. If the breath test technician failed to properly maintain the instrument, or if the machine experienced recurring software glitches, your breath results can be rendered entirely inadmissible.
Deploying Evidentiary Motions to Suppress: If the arresting agency violated your constitutional rights, failed to properly read your implied consent warnings, or improperly coerced you into performing roadside exercises, your lawyer will file formal motions to suppress the evidence, crippling the state’s ability to prosecute.

Video Transcript Summary

Florida trial defense analysis evaluates the critical structural advantages of securing private legal counsel following an impaired driving arrest. The educational guide outlines that a specialized defense lawyer serves to navigate complex administrative DMV deadlines, protect immediate driving privileges within the strict 10-day limit, and execute comprehensive forensic audits of state breathalyzer equipment and police video footage. The overview concludes that bypassing professional representation and rushing into a quick guilty plea inflicts permanent, lifelong criminal record damage that cannot later be sealed or expunged under Florida law.

Protect Your Future with an Expert Tampa Defense

The absolute worst thing you can do after a driving under the influence arrest is remain passive and let critical procedural deadlines pass you by. Earning a second chance, protecting your career, and keeping yourself out of jail requires an aggressive, tech-focused defense strategy tailored to the specific courtroom dynamics of Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties.

As a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Specialist and former prosecutor with over 30 years of localized courtroom experience, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. knows exactly how the state constructs traffic charges—and how to systematically dismantle them. Our firm digs deep into police errors, exposes machine flaws, and fights tirelessly to secure total dismissals, pre-trial diversions, or jury acquittals to safeguard your life.

Read our complete deep-dive article on Should I Hire a DUI Attorney? Video and Guide
Learn more About My Practice and Board-Certified Trial Record
Contact My Tampa Office Immediately to schedule an urgent case evaluation and protect your right to drive.
Call Casey at 813-222-2220

Video – Should I Hire a DUI Attorney in Florida? The Real Value of Expert Defense – Board-Certified criminal trial specialist Casey Ebsary breaks down what a private defense lawyer does, how they protect your license within the 10-day DMV window, and why avoiding a permanent conviction is critical. You can watch our full video analysis detailing what a private defense lawyer does and how we expose police procedural errors.

Florida Field Sobriety Testing: Frequently Asked Questions

DUI Field Sobriety Exercises: Roadside Flaws & Your Legal Rights

When flashing blue lights appear in your rearview mirror and a law enforcement officer asks you to step out of your vehicle, the sudden rush of anxiety can be completely overwhelming. If the officer suspects you have been driving under the influence, they will quickly transition the traffic stop into a criminal investigation by asking you to perform a sequence of physical and cognitive routines known as Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) or Field Sobriety Exercises (FSEs). The officer will typically present these tasks—like walking a straight line or balancing on one foot—as simple, objective alignment checks to verify that you are safe to drive.

In reality, these roadside physical routines are highly coordinated, deeply flawed, and heavily subjective grading systems. They are intentionally designed to help the officer compile a list of physical “clues” to justify your immediate handcuffs, establish probable cause for an arrest, and build the state’s criminal case against you.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has developed a standardized manual outlining three primary roadside tests that law enforcement units across Florida utilize. Despite being treated by prosecutors as definitive proof of impairment, NHTSA’s own historical research admits these exercises carry massive margins of error:

Table: DUI Field Sobriety Exercises Roadside Flaws

Under Florida’s Implied Consent Law, you face a mandatory 1-year driver’s license suspension if you refuse to submit to an approved chemical breathalyzer, blood test, or urine screen after a lawful arrest has already taken place. However, Implied Consent does not apply to roadside physical exercises. You retain the absolute constitutional right to politely decline an officer’s invitation to perform physical coordination tests.

If you choose to refuse, the officer cannot use your refusal to trigger an automatic administrative driver’s license suspension. While the prosecutor may try to argue to a jury that you refused because you knew you were impaired, declining to perform these subjective physical drills deprives the state of the video evidence and physical “clues” they need to lock in a conviction.

The Subjectivity Penalty: Officers do not give you credit for trying. If you successfully complete 95% of a walk-and-turn exercise but step off the imaginary line by a single inch on step seven because a truck drove by, the officer’s report will simply log a failing mark for loss of balance. You are being graded by an adversary who is actively looking for reasons to process your arrest.

Technical Legal Defense: Dismantling Roadside Evidence

If you have already been arrested after attempting to perform field exercises, an experienced defense approach shifts to systematically attacking the scientific validity of the state’s traffic stop observations. Under Florida’s modern evidentiary framework, the prosecution must show that these exercises conform to strict scientific criteria before using them to convict you:

Exposing Strict Protocol Deviations: The NHTSA training manual explicitly dictates how an officer must stand, what exact language they must use, and the surface conditions required for a valid test. If the dashboard camera or body-worn video shows the deputy gave confusing commands or hurried through the HGN eye check, the scientific foundation of the test is broken.
Filing Daubert Challenges via Florida Statute § 90.702: Because the state treats field exercises as specialized scientific markers of intoxication, your defense can push for a formal evidentiary hearing. If the arresting deputy cannot prove they reliably applied the testing principles to your unique physical situation, your attorney can move to bar the officer from offering opinion testimony regarding your performance.
Documenting Mitigating Environmental Realities: We meticulously audit the arrest scene. Factors like flashing emergency strobe lights reflecting in your eyes, uneven roadside grass, loose gravel, and extreme roadside nervousness are used to prove to a judge or jury that your physical performance was degraded by the environment, not by alcohol or controlled substances.

Video Transcript Summary

Florida criminal traffic analysis provides an educational breakdown regarding the technical limitations and structural subjectivity of roadside physical coordination tests. The defensive overview explains that while Standardized Field Sobriety Tests are framed by law enforcement as scientific metrics of impairment, their real-world accuracy rates are highly unstable and deeply impacted by roadside terrain, flashing emergency strobes, and individual medical histories. The summary reminds drivers that unlike breathalyzer testing, performing physical field exercises is entirely voluntary under Florida law, and a motorist retains the legal right to politely decline roadside coordination testing to prevent the creation of misleading state evidence.

Fight Your Roadside Traffic Charges in Tampa Bay

If you have been arrested for a DUI in Hillsborough, Pinellas, or Pasco County based on an officer’s claim that you “failed” your roadside field exercises, do not panic. These subjective roadside logs are highly vulnerable to aggressive legal challenges, especially when audited by an expert who understands police training manuals inside and out.

As a Board-Certified Criminal Trial Specialist and former prosecutor with over 30 years of localized courtroom experience, W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. knows how law enforcement builds traffic cases—and where they cut corners. Our firm dissects dashboard footage, audits officer compliance with NHTSA manuals, and fights aggressively to protect your driving record and your liberty.

Constitutional Rights in DUI Traffic Stops

Understanding your constitutional rights during a traffic stop requires unpacking how this legal distinction impacts your defense:

Bypassing the Subjective Grading Trap: Field sobriety exercises are designed to collect evidence to justify an arrest. As explained in our deep-dive analysis of DUI field sobriety exercises, these physical routines are highly prone to error. An officer will log a minor slip due to passing traffic wind or uneven asphalt as a failure. Exercising your right to refuse denies the state the physical video evidence they rely on in court.

The Inherent Flaws of NHTSA Protocols: Even under laboratory conditions, standard exercises carry high error rates. For example, the Walk-and-Turn test is only 79% accurate, a metric we regularly challenge alongside our specialized videos and legal guides for traffic stops. Natural physical conditions, inner ear issues, or baseline test anxiety are routinely misinterpreted by officers as drug or alcohol impairment.

The Evidentiary Fight in Court: If you refuse the tests, the state may attempt to argue to a jury that your refusal shows a consciousness of guilt. However, an aggressive defense turns this narrative around by showing you declined to participate in an unscientific, rigged test to protect your rights, forcing prosecutors to meet strict evidentiary standards for bad driving allegations instead of relying on subjective roadside scores.

If you are dealing with a driving under the influence charge based on roadside performance metrics in Tampa or Clearwater, do not allow a flawed police report to dictate your future. Review our credentials about my trial practice
to see how a Board-Certified Trial Expert systematically deconstructs law enforcement procedures, and schedule a confidential consultation with our office to evaluate your traffic defense options today.

Read our complete deep-dive article on DUI Field Sobriety Exercises and Defense Standards
Learn more About Our Solo Practice and Board-Certified Trial Record
Contact Our Tampa Office Immediately to schedule an urgent case evaluation and audit your roadside arrest video.
Call Casey at 813-222-2220 You can review our complete analysis of roadside rights, refusal strategies, and NHTSA error rates by watching our video.

Defending Breath, Blood, and Urine Test Refusal Cases

Introduction: Why I Defend DUI Refusal Cases Differently

DUI Refusal in Florida? I’m W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr., and I’ve dedicated my career as a Florida DUI defense attorney to standing between the State and people whose lives can change in an instant after a DUI arrest. If you’re reading this, chances are you’re overwhelmed, frustrated, and worried about what happens next—especially if you refused a breath, blood, or urine test. I understand that fear, and I also understand how aggressively prosecutors try to use a DUI Refusal in Florida against you.

Florida’s implied consent law allows the State to introduce your refusal into evidence, and prosecutors often frame it as a sign of guilt. But that does not mean your case is lost. The law draws a very fine but critical line between what prosecutors are allowed to argue and what violates your constitutional rights. My job is to make sure that line is never crossed without consequence—and to use those violations to protect your freedom, your license, and your future.

Below, I answer the most common DUI Refusal in Florida questions I hear from clients facing DUI refusal charges in Florida.

What Is Florida’s Implied Consent Law, and Why Does It Matter in My DUI Case?

Florida’s implied consent law means that by driving on Florida roads, you are legally deemed to have consented to submit to approved chemical testing if you are lawfully arrested for DUI. This law is codified in Florida Statutes § 316.1932, and it applies to breath, blood, and urine testing. The key issue isn’t consent in the everyday sense—it’s the legal consequences that attach when a driver refuses.

Under the statute, a refusal is admissible in a criminal trial. That means the jury can hear that you refused testing, and the prosecutor will almost certainly argue that the refusal shows you knew you were impaired. What many people don’t realize is that admissible does not mean unlimited. The way the refusal is argued matters just as much as the refusal itself.

You can read the DUI Refusal in Florida statute directly on Justia here:
https://law.justia.com/codes/florida/title-xxiii/chapter-316/section-316-1932/

Why Does the Prosecutor Use My Refusal as Evidence of Guilt?

Prosecutors rely on a theory called “consciousness of guilt.” The argument is that a sober person would have taken the test, while an impaired person refuses because they fear the result. Florida courts have long allowed prosecutors to make this argument—as long as they stay within constitutional boundaries.

The danger comes when the prosecutor turns your refusal into something more than evidence and starts treating it like an obligation you failed to meet. That shift may sound subtle, but legally it’s massive. The State carries the burden of proof at all times, and you never have a duty to help the prosecution build its case.

This is where experienced DUI defense matters. I listen carefully to how the DUI Refusal in Florida is framed, because that framing can be the difference between a conviction and a reversal.

Can the Prosecutor Argue That I Should Have Taken the Test to Prove My Innocence?

No—and when prosecutors do that, they cross a constitutional line.

The United States Constitution guarantees due process, which requires the State to prove every element of DUI beyond a reasonable doubt. You are never required to prove your innocence. When a prosecutor tells the jury that you “could have proved” you were sober by taking the test, that argument improperly shifts the burden of proof.

Florida appellate courts have repeatedly held that arguments suggesting a defendant had a duty to disprove impairment are improper. When this happens, I object immediately and preserve the issue for appeal. In some cases, that objection becomes the foundation for overturning a conviction entirely.

What’s the Difference Between “Consciousness of Guilt” and Illegal Burden Shifting?

This distinction is the battleground in DUI Refusal in Florida trials.

Consciousness of guilt focuses on why you refused. The prosecutor may argue that you refused because you knew the test would show alcohol in your system. Burden shifting focuses on what you should have done to help the State prove or disprove its case.

Once the argument becomes “you could have cleared this up,” “you had a chance to prove it,” or “all you had to do was blow,” the prosecutor is no longer talking about your state of mind. They are talking about your supposed duty to provide evidence, which the law does not allow.

When courts see that line crossed, they take it seriously.

How Do Prior Injuries or Medical Conditions Affect a DUI Refusal Case?

They matter more than most people realize.

When your defense is that poor field sobriety performance was caused by injury, illness, or a physical limitation, the prosecutor’s refusal argument becomes more dangerous. That’s exactly why burden-shifting arguments are so harmful. Suggesting that you should have taken a test to “prove” your injury caused the poor performance forces you to disprove the State’s case.

Florida courts have recognized that when signs of impairment could have benign explanations, improper refusal arguments carry more weight with juries. That’s when objections, curative instructions, and appellate review become critical.

What Are the Penalties for DUI With Property Damage in Florida?

DUI causing property damage is charged under Florida Statutes § 316.193. It is typically a first-degree misdemeanor, but the consequences are far from minor. Penalties may include fines, probation, license suspension, mandatory DUI school, and additional administrative penalties if you refused testing.

Refusal triggers a separate license suspension through the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. These suspensions operate independently from your criminal case, which is why timing and strategy matter.

You can review the statute here:
https://law.justia.com/codes/florida/title-xxiii/chapter-316/section-316-193/

What Should I Listen for During the Prosecutor’s Closing Argument?

I tell clients and families that closings are where cases are won or lost.

Red flags include phrases suggesting you should have proven sobriety, that you declined a chance to clear things up, or that you failed to refute the officer’s suspicions. Anytime the argument implies a duty on your part, that’s grounds for objection.

My role is to shut that down in real time and preserve the record. Even if the judge overrules the objection, the issue may still become the basis for a successful appeal.

How Is the Prosecutor Allowed to Use My Refusal Properly?

The State can argue that your refusal supports an inference that alcohol was present. They can argue that you knew the test would not help you. They can argue that the refusal reflects fear of the results.

What they cannot argue is that you owed them proof. The argument must stay focused on your mindset—not your obligations. That distinction is subtle to jurors but critical to judges and appellate courts.

Table: Florida Implied Consent Law at a Glance

Chart: Prosecutor Arguments — What’s Allowed vs. What’s Not

Frequently Asked Questions About DUI Refusal Cases

Does an improper closing argument always result in a new trial?

No. Courts analyze whether the argument contributed to the verdict. When DUI Refusal in Florida evidence is contested and explanations are plausible, improper arguments are more likely to be considered harmful.

Does Miranda affect my refusal?

Miranda warnings and implied consent warnings are separate legal issues. Whether the arrest was lawful and whether proper warnings were given are areas I investigate closely in every refusal case.

Can the State comment on my failure to present evidence?

Generally no. The State cannot comment on your failure to refute elements of the crime, as that shifts the burden of proof in cases of DUI Refusal in Florida.

Video: DUI Refusal in Florida

Title: DUI Refusal in Florida
Description: A short video showing DUI Refusal in Florida

Your Next Step: Get Answers Before the State Writes the Story

I am W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr., and defending DUI refusal cases is a core part of my practice. A refusal does not equal guilt, and it does not give the State a free pass to violate your rights. The earlier we get involved, the more options we have.

If you want to learn more about my background and commitment to DUI defense, visit:
https://dui2go.com/about/

If you’re ready to talk about your case and DUI Refusal in Florida confidentially, contact me here:
https://dui2go.com/contact/

Your DUI Refusal in Florida is not the end of your defense. In many cases, it’s where the real fight begins.

Full Text of Court DUI Refusal in Florida Opinion

Third District Court of AppealState of Florida

1

2DUI Refusal in Florida Opinion filed February 4, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D24-0483 Lower Tribunal No. ACIQQNE

3

4

5Oscar David Osorio, AppellantVS.State of Florida, Appellee.

6

7

8An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Kristy Nuñez, Judge.

9Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Amy Lynn Weber, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.MILLER, J.

10

11

12

13A jury convicted appellant, Oscar David Osorio, of a single count of driving under the influence (“DUI”) causing property damage, in violation of section 316.193, Florida Statutes (2024). The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the prosecutor harmfully shifted the burden of proof by arguing in closing that Osorio could have proven his innocence by submitting to a breath-alcohol test.

14The facts require little elaboration. While operating a pickup truck, Osorio struck a patrol car parked on the side of the roadway. He encountered Officer Zachary Bakewell on the scene and apologized.

15Osorio blamed the collision on the fact that he was driving while consuming a take-out meal. Noting signs of impairment, Officer Bakewell requested that Osorio participate in a series of field sobriety exercises. Osorio complied but performed poorly. Officer Bakewell administered implied consent warnings and requested a breath-alcohol test. But Osorio refused.

16Osorio was arrested and charged with one count of DUI causing property damage. He then asserted that sports-related injuries had hindered his roadside performance.

17The case proceeded before a jury. During initial closing argument, the prosecutor argued:

18

19“If you believe that he’s sober-if someone was sober in this situation, why would you not blow? (Claps hands). You’d be done with it, proved innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, we’re out of here. There’s one reason you don’t blow. It’s because it’s better not to blow and gamble than it is to blow and remove all doubt. Even if it means your license is going to be suspended.”

20The court overruled a timely defense objection.

21Defense counsel argued in her closing that Officer Bakewell failed to conduct an adequate investigation, and Osorio’s preexisting injuries precipitated his poor roadside performance. The prosecutor reiterated in rebuttal closing that Osorio was provided an opportunity to “prove” he was not impaired:

22

23“But the part that I really want to emphasize is, [the officer] did investigate the injuries. He gave the defendant a chance to prove that due to poor performance—that his poor performance was due to anything other than alcohol. All he had to do was blow.”

24The defense again unsuccessfully objected. Osorio was convicted as charged and sentenced, accordingly. This appeal ensued.IIA

25We review a trial court’s ruling on the propriety of closing arguments for an abuse of discretion. See Paul v. State, 407 So. 3d 468, 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025). Improper burden-shifting remarks are subject to a harmless error analysis. See Howitt v. State, 266 So. 3d 219, 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). The State bears the burden of proving “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986).B

26

27“The purpose of closing argument is to help the jury understand the issues presented in a case by applying the evidence to the applicable law.” Goodrich v. State, 854 So. 2d 663, 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). In the criminal arena, both the State and defense counsel are afforded wide latitude in delivering closings. Jean v. State, 27 So. 3d 784, 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). But such latitude is not unfettered.

28“Due process requires the [State] to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. State, 575 So. 2d 181, 188 (Fla. 1991). It follows that “it is error for a prosecutor to make statements that shift the burden of proof and invite the jury to convict the defendant for some reason other than that the State has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.” Gore v. State, 719 So. 2d 1197, 1200 (Fla. 1998). The State is thus ordinarily precluded from arguing that the defendant has assumed a duty to refute any element of the crime. See Jackson, 575 So. 2d at 188.

29

30Codified in section 316.1932, Florida Statutes (2023), Florida’s implied consent law provides, in pertinent part:

31“A person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved chemical test or physical test including, but not limited to, an infrared light test of his or her breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood or breath if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.”

32§ 316.1932(1)(a)1.a., Fla. Stat. The statute further provides that “[t]he refusal to submit to a chemical or physical breath test upon the request of a law enforcement officer… is admissible into evidence in any criminal proceeding.” Id.

33Consistent with the statute, it has long been settled that impairment and consciousness of guilt may be inferred from the defendant’s refusal to submit to a breath-alcohol test. The prosecutor may therefore properly argue that the refusal is positive evidence, supporting the conclusion that the test would have revealed the presence of alcohol. See Grzelka v. State, 881 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Likewise, the more specific assertion that the defendant refused to submit to testing because he knew his breath-alcohol concentration would be over the legal limit is authorized. See O’Brien v. State, 367 So. 3d 528, 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023).

34

35But arguments blurring the distinction between the defendant’s consciousness of guilt and the State’s burden of proof go too far. See People v. Johnson, 819 N.E.2d 1233, 1238 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). Our sister courts have found that suggesting the defendant forfeited the opportunity to prove his innocence by refusing to submit to testing is improper burden shifting. See Sheely v. State, 392 So. 3d 576, 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (burden shifting to argue that “defendant declined the opportunity to dispel the officers’ suspicions that he was impaired”); Morris v. State, 988 So. 2d 120, 122-23 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (prosecutor improperly shifted the burden of proof by arguing that an innocent person would “volunteer to take the [breath or blood alcohol tests or roadside exercises] to ‘prove’ his or her innocence”); Concha v. State, 972 So. 2d 996, 998–99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (finding prosecutor commented on the defendant’s right to remain silent by arguing defendant failed to demand a test to prove his sobriety).

36Other jurisdictions with substantially similar implied-consent statutes have reached similar holdings. See People v. Handwerker, 816 N.Y.S.2d 824, 826 (N.Y. App. Term 2006) (prosecutor shifted the burden in arguing “if he’s innocent, then why doesn’t he want to take the test to prove that?”); State v. Wellknown, 510 P.3d 84, 93–94 (Mont. 2022) (concluding that the prosecutor’s remarks that the defendant “was given every opportunity to perform field sobriety maneuvers to communicate with [law enforcement] to show that he is not [under the influence of alcohol],” and that he “chose not to do those. He chose not to show the officers that he was not under the influence” were improper burden shifting) (emphasis omitted); State v. Favel, P.3d 1126, 1131-32 (Mont. 2015) (concluding that prosecutor’s remark that defendant could have “proven her innocence” by submitting to a breath test was improper because it conveyed “that if [the defendant] were innocent she would have proven her innocence by submitting to a breath test”); State v. Mitchell, 756 S.E.2d 609, 611 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) (argument “that Mitchell could have proven his innocence by taking a breath test, but chose not to do so” was improper burden shifting); Pinch v. State, 593 S.E.2d 1, 6 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (deeming improper prosecutor’s comments that “if Pinch had taken the breath test, ‘there was a chance to show sobriety’”).C

37

38Against these principles, we turn to this case. The State properly argued that if Osorio was not impaired, he would have agreed to submit to a breathalyzer. But by invoking the quantum of proof and further suggesting that Osorio waived the opportunity to prove his innocence, the remarks strayed beyond consciousness of guilt and into impermissible territory. We are aware that even constitutional error does not necessarily rise to a harmful level. See Figueroa-Sanabria v. State, 366 So. 3d 1035, 1050 (Fla. 2023). But here, as in Sheely, “the signs of impairment observed by the officer could have been attributed to benign reasons.” Sheely, 392 So. 3d at 578. Given the nature of the remaining evidence, we are not persuaded there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction. See id.; see also DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d at 1135–36. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

39

40

41

42Reversed and remanded.

42FERNANDEZ, J., concurs.

43We summarily dispense with the State’s argument that the comments were fair reply or invited error because the initial burden-shifting argument occurred in the first summation, not rebuttal.Oscar David Osorio v. State of Florida Case No. 3D24-0483

44[Dissenting Opinion in DUI Refusal in Florida Case]

45GOODEN, J., dissenting.

46In prosecutions for driving under the influence where a defendant refused to submit to a breathalyzer test, prosecutors must be careful not to cross the line from appropriately addressing the refusal as consciousness of guilt to improperly shifting the burden to the defendant to prove his or her innocence. This case requires us to analyze that line and determine whether the State stayed within the appropriate confines during closing argument. Unlike my colleagues, I find that the State did so and therefore, would affirm.

47Shortly after midnight on August 14, 2023, police officers were conducting a traffic stop in the far-right lane of Biscayne Boulevard. Two patrol cars were behind the vehicle with their emergency lights activated. Suddenly, a white pickup truck-driving erratically and at a high speed- struck the driver’s side mirror of one of the patrol cars. Just past both patrol cars, the pickup truck stopped. An officer came to the passenger door and directed the driver, Oscar David Osorio, to move the truck to a side street for safety. Osorio complied.

48But when the officer came to the driver’s side door, he noticed Osorio’s eyes were bloodshot and watery, and his face was pale and red-spotted. Osorio told the officer he was eating Taco Bell when he struck the patrol car and he was “sorry about that, man.” The officer noticed that Osorio was slow to respond and gave a “very blank stare.”

49

50The officer asked Osorio to step out of the truck. Stumbling out, Osorio had trouble maintaining his balance and smelled of alcohol. The officer requested that Osorio perform field sobriety exercises. On the walk-and-turn exercise, he did not maintain his balance, did not walk in a straight line, failed to count his steps aloud as instructed, and failed to turn as requested. Osorio then did not perform the one leg stand exercise as directed. For those reasons, the officer arrested Osorio for driving under the influence.

51Osorio waived his Miranda rights and made several statements. He stated he was at a friend’s home before the accident, but denied drinking. Osorio also explained he has no physical disabilities or injuries that would have affected his results on the field sobriety exercises. Later, however, he claimed he had prior sports injuries, but did not elaborate what those were.

52The officer transported Osorio to the police station for a breathalyzer test. The officer explained Florida’s implied consent law and its consequences. Yet Osorio refused to provide a breath sample. He signed the implied consent form acknowledging that refusing to do so results in suspension of his driver’s license and the possibility of additional criminal charges.

53The State charged Osorio with driving under the influence causing or contributing to causing property damage. The case proceeded to trial. During opening statements, the State explained that Osorio refused to provide a sample of his breath because he knew what the results would show. It also reiterated that it has the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Osorio’s theory of the case was that he was distracted- not intoxicated. He pointed to the lack of evidence of intoxication, and highlighted no testing was done. Osorio argued throughout that the State did not meet its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

54The State called one witness-the officer. As exhibits, the State entered the officer’s body-worn camera footage of the encounter, footage from the dash camera, footage of the post-Miranda statements, and the signed implied consent form. Osorio did not testify and presented no witnesses.

55Pertinent to our review is closing argument. The State began by reminding the jury of its burden. It addressed the elements it must prove and argued it did so “fairly clearly.” It then played the video again of Osorio performing the field sobriety exercises. Then, the prosecutor stated:

56“Now, let’s say wrecking into a big sign that says don’t hit me doesn’t convince you, this video doesn’t convince you, there’s one more thing that should convince you. It’s the defendant’s actions. He was informed If you would please He was informed that if he didn’t blow his license would be suspended, that it’d be used against him right here, that – Let me Let me take a step back. If you believe that he’s sober – If someone was sober in this situation, why would you not blow? (Claps hands). You’d be done with it, proved innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, we’re out of here. There’s one reason you don’t blow. It’s because it’s better not to blow and gamble than it is to blow and remove all doubt. Even if it means your license is going to be suspended.”

57Osorio objected on the grounds of improper burden-shifting. The trial court overruled the objection, but instructed the jury to rely on the evidence presented and not on what the lawyers say during closing argument.

58In his closing argument, Osorio argued that the State has the “burden to prove beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt” that he was under the influence. He pointed to the lack of evidence showing intoxication, the evidence presented, and the conflicts in that evidence. Osorio highlighted that he told the officer he had prior sports injuries and the officer never investigated those injuries. He then reminded the jury again that the “burden of proof ends at this table with the government. Hold the government to its burden. They have not proved every single element beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt in this case, save they offered you the testimony of one officer.”

59

60In rebuttal, the State continued:

61“Now, there was also a lot of talk about the investigation the officer did and that he didn’t look into the injuries more. I mean, I guess, where I want to start is, he’s not a doctor. Was he supposed to go check his ankles for the sports injuries? Never mind the fact that that he said he didn’t have any injuries after he didn’t have any illnesses before. excuse me But the part that I really want to emphasize is, he did investigate the injuries. He gave the defendant a chance to prove that due to poor performance … that his poor performance was due to anything other than alcohol. All he had to do was blow. All he had to do was blow. He chose not to.”

62Osorio objected three times to improper burden-shifting, and three times the trial court overruled the objection. Thereafter, the trial court instructed the jury that the State has the burden to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and a defendant need not disprove any element or to prove his or her innocence.

63Ultimately, the jury found Osorio guilty of driving under the influence causing or contributing to causing property damage. The trial court adjudicated Osorio guilty, imposed a $2,000 fine, sentenced him to thirty days house arrest followed by one year of reporting probation, and suspended his license for one year due to his refusal to submit to the breathalyzer test.

64This appeal followed. Osorio challenges the trial court’s decision to overrule his burden-shifting objections during closing argument.II.

65Our review is for an abuse of discretion. See Ford v. State, 802 So. 2d 1121, 1132 (Fla. 2001) (“It is within the court’s discretion to control the comments made to a jury, and a court’s ruling will be sustained on review absent an abuse of discretion.”). In doing so, we must consider harmless error. See Rodriguez v. State, 753 So. 2d 29, 39 (Fla. 2000) (“However, it is well settled that such erroneous comments do not require an automatic reversal.”); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1139 (Fla. 1986) (“The focus is on the effect of the error on the trier-of-fact. The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict. The burden to show the error was harmless must remain on the state.”).III.A.

66Closing argument is an attorney’s final chance to persuade the jury. It is his or her chance to summarize the evidence. The attorney should “help the jury understand the issues by applying the evidence to the law applicable to the case.” Hill v. State, 515 So. 2d 176, 178 (Fla. 1987). Attorneys “may comment on the uncontradicted or uncontroverted nature of the evidence,” and point to certain evidence being more believable than others. White v. State, 377 So. 2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 1979); Covington v. State, 842 So. 2d 170, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). This powerful moment helps connect the dots for the jury.

67

68

69Yet an attorney’s “comments must be based on facts in evidence or fair inference from those facts.” McKenzie v. State, 830 So. 2d 234, 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). See also R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.4(e) (“A lawyer must not in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence….”); Huff v. State, 437 So. 2d 1087, 1090 (Fla. 1983) (“Second, the state attorney is prohibited from commenting on matters unsupported by the evidence produced at trial.”). “Logical inferences may be drawn, and counsel is allowed to advance all legitimate arguments.” Thomas v. State, 748 So. 2d 970, 984 (Fla. 1999). See also Griffin v. State, 866 So. 2d 1, 16 (Fla. 2003) (“Merely arguing a conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence is permissible fair comment.”). To this end, “a considerable degree of latitude is allowed prosecutors in closing argument to the jury . . ..” Frierson v. State, 339 So. 2d 312, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). But “this latitude does not extend to permit improper argument.” Gore v. State, 719 So. 2d 1197, 1200 (Fla. 1998).

70

71Placed in the context of a criminal trial, the standard is “not which side is more believable….” Id. Rather-because the defendant is cloaked with the presumption of innocence and has a right to due process of law-the State has the burden to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. “For that reason, it is error for a prosecutor to make statements that shift the burden of proof and invite the jury to convict the defendant for some reason other than that the State has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. Improper comments include those that suggest the defendant has an obligation to produce evidence, prove his or her innocence, or refute elements of the charged offense. Rivera v. State, 840 So. 2d 284, 288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). See also Jackson v. State, 575 So. 2d 181, 188 (Fla. 1991) (“Accordingly, the state cannot comment on a defendant’s failure to produce evidence to refute an element of the crime, because doing so could erroneously lead the jury to believe that the defendant carried the burden of introducing evidence.”).

72Even so, improper comments may still be permissible in certain narrow circumstances if they are a fair reply or an invited response to a defendant’s closing argument. See Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156, 1166 (Fla. 2006); Joyner v. State, 979 So. 2d 1246, 1249-50 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). See also State v. Ling, 212 So. 3d 530, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“Where defense counsel places an issue before the jury in closing argument, the prosecution is permitted to respond, and ‘the defense may not be granted a new trial because the state “rose to the bait.”‘”) (citing Brown v. State, 367 So. 2d 616, 625 (Fla. 1979)). Prosecutors have latitude to fairly respond to the defense’s characterization of the evidence. Paul v. State, 407 So. 3d 468, 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025). In the end, “[a] prosecutor’s argument should be examined in the context in which it is made.” Stancle v. State, 854 So. 2d 228, 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). This context is critical.B.

73

74Florida’s implied consent law allows the jury to hear that the defendant refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. It provides:

75

76“A person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved chemical test or physical test including, but not limited to, an infrared light test of his or her breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood or breath if the person is lawfully arrested for any offense allegedly committed while the person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. 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.”

77§ 316.1932(1)(a)1.a, Fla. Stat. (2023) (emphasis added).

78When the defendant is advised of the consequences, evidence of the refusal is probative of consciousness of guilt. State v. Taylor, 648 So. 2d 701, 704 (Fla. 1995); Grzelka v. State, 881 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). See also Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (defining consciousness of guilt as “[t]he awareness of an accused that he or she has engaged in blameworthy conduct, usu. as demonstrated by evidence that the accused has tried to avoid the consequences of a crime….”); Penalver v. State, 926 So. 2d 1118, 1132 (Fla. 2006) (“Additionally, this Court has allowed the admission of evidence as relevant to consciousness of guilt where a suspect in any manner attempts to evade prosecution after a crime has been committed.”); Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903, 908 (Fla. 1981) (“When a suspected person in any manner attempts to escape or evade a threatened prosecution by flight, concealment, resistance to lawful arrest, or other indications after the fact of a desire to evade prosecution, such fact is admissible, being relevant to the consciousness of guilt which may be inferred from such circumstance.”). “[I]f a defendant knows that his refusal carries with it adverse consequences, the hypothesis that the refusal was an innocent act is far less plausible.” Menna v. State, 846 So. 2d 502, 505 (Fla. 2003).

79

80In sum, evidence that the defendant refused to submit to a breathalyzer test is admissible. Since it is admissible evidence, a prosecutor can address it and the logical inferences that flow therefrom during closing arguments- if he or she avoids improper argument.C.

81Osorio asserts that the State’s closing argument crossed the line and improperly shifted the burden to him. Viewing the closing arguments in their entirety and putting the statements in context, I disagree. While these comments are close to the line, I find that the prosecutor did not cross it.

82After reminding the jury of its burden of proof, addressing the crime’s elements, and showing the video of the field sobriety exercises, the State turned to Osorio’s refusal. It did so within the context of Osorio’s reason not to submit-consciousness of guilt. It stressed why someone would not blow and focused on the gamble involved that a jury may find that there is not enough evidence of intoxication to convict. This went directly to Osorio’s conduct to try to avoid the consequences of his crime. Penalver, 926 So. 2d at 1132; Straight, 397 So. 2d at 908.

83Even though the word “prove” was used, the inartful comments did not shift the burden of proof. Because the State focused on the reason for the refusal-not on whether Osorio demanded testing to prove his innocence or that Osorio had to prove anything in court-the argument was proper. Contrast O’Brien v. State, 367 So. 3d 528, 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (finding statement that defendant did not want the officers or the jury to know how much he had to drink was proper and did not shift the burden of proof), with Morris v. State, 988 So. 2d 120, 123 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (finding argument that an innocent man would take the breath test and prove the officer wrong was improper as it told the jury they should infer guilt because Morris did not take affirmative steps to prove his innocence), Concha v. State, 972 So. 2d 996, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding “I’m not drunk he says. Okay. Prove it.” was improper and shifted the burden), and Sheely v. State, 392 So. 3d 576, 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (finding improper the State’s comment that the defendant “declined” to “dispel the officers’ suspicions” by refusing to submit). It was fair commentary based on the evidence presented at trial. Osorio was not forced to prove anything.

84As for the rebuttal, I also find that the State’s comments were proper. It fell within the bounds of fair reply. The prosecutor’s comment that the officer “gave the defendant a chance to prove that … his poor performance was due to anything other than alcohol,” was directly in response to Osorio’s claim that the officer did not thoroughly investigate his prior sports injuries to determine whether he could perform the field sobriety exercises. See Walls, 926 So. 2d at 1166; Joyner, 979 So. 2d at 1249. This was an attempt to show the folly of Osorio’s argument.D.

85

86

87Even if I found the comments improper, I would find any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d at 1139. There is no reasonable possibility that the purported error contributed to the verdict.

88The State and Osorio both explained to the jury repeatedly during voir dire, opening statements, and closing arguments that the State has the burden of proof. This was further conveyed by the trial court in its jury instructions throughout trial. See Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So. 2d 932, 942 (Fla. 2000) (“Absent a finding to the contrary, juries are presumed to follow the instructions given them.”). With the sheer number of times the jury heard it, there can be no confusion about the burden of proof. See Bush v. State, 809 So. 2d 107, 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“With the repetition of this instruction, it cannot be suggested that the state’s argument did anything to make the jury believe that the burden was otherwise. Thus, the remarks were not harmful.”).

89

90Further, these were brief comments during closing and were not the theme or the focus. See Lammons v. State, 246 So. 3d 524, 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Wellons v. State, 87 So. 3d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). And, immediately after the initial comment, the trial court gave a curative instruction and directed the jury to rely on the evidence and that closing argument is not evidence. See Almeida v. State, 748 So. 2d 922, 927 (Fla. 1999) (finding closing argument error harmless, in part, because the trial court instructed the jury that what the lawyers say is neither evidence nor law); Raysor v. State, 276 So. 3d 121, 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (“The giving of this instruction can factor into a determination of whether an improper argument is harmless or requires reversal.”). In effect, the jury was told to ignore the argument, thus dispelling the prejudicial effect.

91What is more, given the uncontroverted and unimpeached evidence, there is no reasonable possibility that, but for these comments, the outcome at trial would have been any different. See Bradley v. State, 214 So. 3d 648, 656 (Fla. 2017). This evidence included detailed testimony from the arresting officer, the implied consent form refusing the breathalyzer test, and several videos showing his erratic driving, behavior, performance in field sobriety exercises, and speech. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d at 1135. This evidence showed that at a high speed, Osorio struck a patrol car that had its lights activated at night. He had bloodshot eyes and a blank look on his face. The officer smelled alcohol emanating from Osorio. When he exited the vehicle, Osorio could not maintain his balance and stumbled. He then failed two field sobriety exercises. Osorio admitted to hanging out with friends right before the accident. This was all caught on camera and shown to the jury. There is no doubt that Osorio was intoxicated.IV.

92

93

94When viewed in context and within the entirety of the closing arguments, the challenged comments did not shift the burden of proof to Osorio. The State never asserted Osorio had to prove his innocence, bring forth evidence, or refute elements of the crime. The jury was not misled as to the burden-instead, it was repeatedly told that the State had the burden to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Simply put, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

95For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

96End of DUI Refusal in Florida Opinion

Even law enforcement officers aren’t immune to the DUI process—and some react in surprising ways – breath test refusal. A notable case out of Florida captured national attention when a retired sheriff’s deputy, accused of DUI, boldly told arresting officers, “I wrote the book on DUI.” The moment was caught on body cam footage, revealing the complexity—and irony—of DUI cases, even for those who once enforced the law.

The Arrest That Sparked National Interest

In 2017, retired Brevard County Sheriff’s Deputy Wesley Hoyt Snipes was pulled over for suspected DUI. As officers began the standard protocol—including field sobriety tests and a request for a breath test—Snipes made headlines with his confident and unapologetic demeanor. According to ClickOrlando.com, he told officers, “You’re wasting your time. I know the game,” and refused the breath test.

This situation raises an important question: What exactly happens when a police officer—or anyone else—refuses a breath test in Florida?

Florida Law and Breath Test Refusals

Under Florida Statute 316.1932, drivers are deemed to have given “implied consent” to chemical testing, including breath, blood, or urine tests if lawfully arrested for DUI. Breath test refusal can lead to a one-year license suspension for a first refusal and an 18-month suspension for subsequent refusals, along with misdemeanor criminal charges.

Consequences for Officers Are the Same—In Theory

While police officers are trained in DUI enforcement and the breath test process, when they themselves are suspects, they are legally subject to the same consequences as any other driver. That includes license suspension and potential prosecution. However, how the case is handled—both administratively and in court—can vary depending on the jurisdiction and internal politics.

Why Refusing a Breath Test Can Backfire—Even If You “Know the Game”

Some people believe that refusing a breath test will help them beat a DUI charge. But in reality, a refusal can be used as evidence of guilt in court, especially if it’s accompanied by poor performance on field sobriety tests or slurred speech captured on bodycam footage. Prosecutors often argue that a person refused the test because they knew they were impaired.

Even experienced law enforcement professionals like Snipes are not immune to these legal consequences. The key takeaway: refusing a breath test isn’t a foolproof strategy—it can actually make things worse.

What Should You Do If You’re Arrested for DUI in Florida?

If you’re stopped for DUI, it’s crucial to remain calm, say as little as possible, and contact an experienced DUI defense attorney as soon as possible. Whether you refused a breath test or submitted and blew over the legal limit, you still have rights and possible defenses.

At the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., we have defended countless DUI cases—including those involving breath test refusals. We know the legal landscape, the procedures officers are supposed to follow, and how to identify constitutional violations and evidentiary weaknesses.

Call Us Now – Protect Your Rights

Have you or a loved one been arrested for DUI in Florida? Were you asked to take a breath test and refused? Don’t wait—your license and your future are at stake. Contact us today.

👉 Schedule your free DUI defense consultation
📞 Call: (813) 222-2220

We’re available 24/7 to help you fight your charges and understand your options.

Final Thoughts: Even Cops Can Get Caught

The story of a former sheriff refusing a breath test reminds us that DUI laws apply to everyone, regardless of badge or background. If you’re facing DUI charges in Tampa or anywhere in Florida, you need someone who knows the system inside and out—someone who’s written the book on DUI defense.

Let us help. Visit DUI2Go.com to learn more about your rights and how we can fight for you.

Breath Test Refusals and How We Challenge Them in Court

As illustrated by cases like that of former Deputy Snipes, refusing a breath test may seem like a strategic move. But when improperly handled by law enforcement or when due process is violated, these cases become vulnerable to legal attack—and that’s where we step in.

At the Law Office of W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr., we regularly challenge:

• Invalid breathalyzer results due to lack of maintenance logs or expired certification
• Unlawful traffic stops that violate constitutional protections
• Failure to inform the driver of the consequences of refusing to blow
• Lack of probable cause to demand a breath test in the first place
• Improperly conducted field sobriety exercises, often caught on dash or body cam

Every DUI case is fact-specific. That’s why we conduct a detailed review of your arrest reports, video footage, and breath test protocols to uncover every possible defense.

We’ve Seen It All—Now Let Us Help You

Whether your case is like the one involving the retired deputy—or it involves an everyday traffic stop turned into a nightmare—you don’t have to go through this alone.

W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. is not just a seasoned trial attorney—he is also a former prosecutor and board-certified criminal trial lawyer, with decades of experience handling DUI cases throughout Florida.

We’ve helped countless clients get DUI charges reduced, dismissed, or resolved with minimal impact. We can do the same for you.

Ready to Defend Your DUI Charge?

📍 Serving Tampa, Hillsborough County, and surrounding areas
📞 Call us now at (813) 222-2220
📩 Or request your FREE case consultation online

✅ 24/7 availability
✅ Payment plans available
✅ Spanish-speaking support available upon request

Final Thought: When You Say “No” to the Breath Test, Say “Yes” to Legal Help

Refusing a breath test isn’t the end of your defense—it’s just the beginning. And with the right DUI lawyer by your side, you can fight back effectively.

Visit DUI2Go.com to learn more about DUI defenses, refusal laws, and your rights under Florida law. Let us help you protect your driving privileges, your record, and your freedom.

Need help now? Don’t wait—your license may already be on the line.
👉 Click here to get started with your case today.

What happens if I refuse a breath test in Florida?

Refusing a breath test in Florida can lead to an automatic license suspension—1 year for a first refusal and 18 months for any subsequent refusal. If you refuse a second time, you may also be charged with a misdemeanor under Florida law. Learn more from Florida Statute 316.1932.
📞 Contact DUI Defense Attorney Casey Ebsary today to explore your options.

Can police officers refuse a breath test like civilians?

Yes, police officers are subject to the same DUI laws as civilians, including implied consent and the penalties for refusing to blow. However, administrative and legal consequences can vary based on internal investigations and departmental policies. Florida’s implied consent law applies to all drivers.
👤 View Attorney Casey Ebsary’s Bio.

Can a refusal to blow be used against me in court?

Yes, prosecutors often argue that refusing a breath test indicates consciousness of guilt. The refusal may be introduced as evidence, especially if combined with poor driving or failed field sobriety tests. That’s why having an experienced defense lawyer is critical.
📞 Schedule your free consultation here.

Is it legal to refuse a breath test in Florida?

While it is legal to refuse a breath test, doing so carries administrative penalties and can lead to criminal charges if it’s a second refusal. Law enforcement must inform you of these consequences at the time of arrest, as required under Florida’s Implied Consent law.
👤 Meet DUI Defense Attorney W.F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr.

What is the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit in Florida?

Florida law sets the BAC limit at 0.08% for drivers 21 and older, 0.04% for commercial drivers, and 0.02% for drivers under 21. Driving with a BAC above these levels is a criminal offense under Florida Statute 316.193.
📞 Talk to a Tampa DUI attorney today.

What should I do if I’ve already refused a breath test?

If you’ve refused a breath test, it’s important to act quickly to challenge your license suspension and prepare your legal defense. You only have 10 days to request a DMV hearing to save your driving privileges. Some drivers change their minds after refusing – see what happens here.
📩 Request your free case review now.

What happens at a formal review hearing after a refusal?

A formal review hearing allows you to contest the suspension of your driver’s license due to a refusal. You can present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. These hearings are governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 15A-6.
📞 Let us represent you at the hearing – Contact us today.

Can I be charged with DUI even without a breath test result?

Yes, you can still be charged and convicted of DUI based on observations by the arresting officer, such as erratic driving, slurred speech, or failing field sobriety tests. The state does not need a breath result to pursue charges under Florida Statute 316.193.
👤 Learn how Attorney Casey Ebsary challenges DUI evidence.

What defenses exist for refusing a breath test?

Possible defenses include improper police procedure, lack of probable cause, and failure to read the implied consent warning. In some cases, medical conditions or language barriers may justify the refusal.
📞 Talk to a DUI defense expert now.

Where can I learn more about Florida DUI laws and penalties?

For a comprehensive overview, refer to the Florida Statutes, especially Section 316.193 for DUI offenses and Section 316.1932 for implied consent laws. You can also explore your rights and legal options at DUI2Go.com.
📩 Contact us here for personalized legal guidance.

Ready to Defend Your DUI Charge?

📍 Serving Tampa, Hillsborough County, and surrounding areas
📞 Call us now at (813) 222-2220
📩 Or request your FREE case consultation online

✅ 24/7 availability
✅ Payment plans available
✅ Spanish-speaking support available upon request

Learn More About Breath Test Refusals

• Tampa DUI Attorney Video Refusal Breath Test

  Date

  January 10, 2025

• Refusal of a Breath Test

  Date

  October 19, 2016

• TRAF1076 REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO TESTING 316.1939.1

  Date

  May 1, 2018

If you’re seeking information on DUI penalties, it’s crucial to know that the consequences of a DUI offense can vary based on several factors. Here are key considerations:

Call for Help 813-222-2220

Blood-Alcohol Content (BAC):

Penalties can be more severe if your BAC or breath-alcohol content (BrAC) is over .15. For more detailed information on Florida DUI laws, individuals can refer to the official Florida Statutes website (https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/) or consult with legal professionals who specialize in DUI defense to ensure accurate and up-to-date guidance. Understanding the legal consequences associated with elevated BAC levels empowers individuals to make informed decisions and navigate the legal process more effectively.

Presence of a Minor:

Having a minor as a passenger can impact the severity of penalties.

Involvement in a Crash:

If a motor vehicle crash occurs with property damage or injuries, it can lead to increased penalties.

Refusal to Submit to Testing:

Refusing a chemical test, whether for breath, blood, or urine, following a prior refusal can lead to heightened legal consequences. In the context of DUI offenses, the decision to decline such testing can carry significant ramifications. When an individual has previously refused to undergo a chemical test, subsequent refusals often trigger increased penalties. Legal systems view repeated refusals as an aggravating factor, reflecting negatively on the individual’s cooperation with law enforcement.

Prior DUI Convictions:

The presence of prior DUI convictions is a critical factor. Consider the following scenarios:

• First lifetime DUI conviction.
• Second DUI outside of five years from any prior conviction.
• Second DUI within five years from any prior conviction.
• Third DUI outside of ten years from any prior conviction.
• Third DUI within ten years from any prior conviction.
• Fourth lifetime DUI conviction.

To make this information more accessible, the State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County has created a chart summarizing these penalties. Keep in mind that these penalties are typically imposed at the time of sentencing. It’s important to be aware of these factors and seek guidance if you find yourself facing DUI charges.

Lawyer Fighting Pinellas DUI Penalties in Clearwater, FL

I am a specialist in DUI Defense in Pinellas County, FL.

I am near the Pinellas County Courthouse with my office located in Tampa Bay. You can find me close to the Courthouse in Clearwater, FL located at 14250 49th St N Clearwater, FL 33762-2800 .  By the way, the court is located near the Clearwater Bureau of Administrative Reviews (BAR) located at 4585 140th Ave N #1001, Clearwater, FL 33762, USA.

Whether your DUI case involves a breath test, blood test, urine test, or refusal to submit to a chemical test, we’re here to assist you. Don’t go to court by yourself.

Reach out to a skilled criminal defense lawyer in Pinellas County, FL, for traffic crimes. Give me a call at 813-222-2220.

Call for Help 813-222-2220

Table of Minimum Mandatory DUI Penalties in Pinellas County, FL

Summary of Penalties for Driving Under the Influence

Navigating DUI penalties in Pinellas County, FL, involves understanding varying consequences influenced by factors like Blood-Alcohol Content (BAC) and prior convictions. The State Attorney’s Office provides a helpful chart summarizing these penalties. Specialist Casey the Lawyer, near Pinellas County Courthouse, emphasizes professional assistance for DUI cases involving tests or refusals. If facing charges, contact at 813-222-2220. Don’t navigate court alone.

Call for Help 813-222-2220

Refusal to Submit to Chemical Test in a DUI

Refusal to Submit to Chemical Test in a DUI

Driving Under Influence Defense Attorney in Tampa reports that the Refusal to submit to a urine test may not always be a bad decision for those suspected of DUI. Especially relevant one court just ruled that a DUI Officer did not have probable cause to ask a defendant to submit to a urine test. The cop asked for a Urine sample to perform a chemical test under Florida Statute Chapter 316.

The court noted that the defendant’s breath test did not meet the level for the presumption of impairment. Nevertheless, the police officer saw the DUI defendant lying in a vehicle. Then the driver did not move the vehicle through multiple traffic light phases. The cop testified that the suspect exhibited signs of intoxication, and told the DUI officer that he was in pain and needed to take medication.

The key to the court’s ruling suppressing testimony about the refusal to submit to a chemical test was a finding of the unqualification of the Officer to make a determination that the defendant was under influence of anything other than alcohol. Notably, the cop did not observe any evidence that defendant was under influence of narcotics. A search of the DUI suspect’s vehicle and his person did not reveal the presence of any drugs. The court ruled in favor of suppressing the refusal to submit. Read about efforts to improve qualifications of officers.

Refusal to Submit to Chemical Test Case Excerpts:

Before The Trial, The Court  Allowed The Refusal To Submit Into Evidence

“[T]he Appellant was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence in violation of Florida Statute §316.193(1). Prior to trial, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress evidence of the Defendant’s refusal to submit to a urine test. The Trial Court denied the motion to suppress evidence, and the evidence of the Defendant’s refusal was admitted into evidence.”

Collecting And Testing Urine Are Considered Searches

“The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution guarantee citizens the right to be free against unreasonable searches and seizures. Art I § 12, Fla. Constitution. In order to request a driver submit to a urine test, the officers must [have] reasonable cause to believe such person was driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of chemical substances or controlled substances. Additionally, it is clear that the collection and testing of urine intrude upon expectations of privacy that society has long recognized as reasonable . . . these intrusions must be deemed searches under the Fourth Amendment. Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executive Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 617 (1989). “

An Officer Must Look At The Whole Picture

“Therefore, the test is whether the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been committed. McNeil v. State, 512 So.2d 1062, 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). In determining if probable cause exists, the totality of the circumstances, i.e., the whole picture, must be taken into account. State v. Ellison, 455 So.2d 424, 427, (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Elliot v. State, 597 So.2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA1992). “

The Officer’s Hunch Is NOT Enough

“The facts and circumstances in the instant case fall short of the probable cause finding necessary for the officer to believe that the Defendant was under the influence of drugs.” “The grounds for requesting the urine sample in this case resembles a hunch or a mere suspicion, rather than probable cause. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress.”

Source: FLWSUPP 1807ESTR

If the State does not prove intoxication, there is no DUI conviction. Recently, we at DUI2Go encountered a tough case where the driver had blown into an Intoxilyzer 8000 breath machine and exceeded the legal limit in Florida of .08. Fortunately, our office has access to the logs of all breath test given by all machines in Florida and the maintenance records of these machines. As a result, we are sharing some of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Intoxilyzer 8000 files. This is the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Alcohol Testing Program Intoxilyzer 8000 Operational Procedures also known as Form 37. In addition, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement also uses Form 38 Breath Alcohol Test Affidavit.  Finally, there is some great information in the Alcohol Testing Program Intoxilyzer® 8000 Reference Guide.

The Accuracy of Intoxilyzer 8000 in Court

Before 2014, often the state did not present scientific evidence of the machine’s accuracy. Recently, a Florida Driving Under the Influence court ruled in State v. Garcia, (20th Cir Aug 20, 2014) that the State Attorney must establish the admission of an Intoxilyzer Breath Test result. Prosecutors must use the traditional scientific predicate to introduce breath test results from Intoxilyzer 8000 in a trial. The court ruled that it could not determine whether the modified Intoxilyzer 8000 used in Florida was same machine/instrument approved by NHTSA ( National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ) for use in Florida.

Sometimes we uncover broken Intoxilyzer 8000 breath machines. We reviewed this official FDLE Form 41 Department Inspection Report records of this machine. The machine had not passed the post-inspection Diagnostic Check. The instrument does not comply with Florida Administrative Code Chapter 11D-8. In addition, after failing its monthly inspection there was no evidence of repairing the machine. Notably, the machine returned to service without any repair record.

No Proof, No DUI Conviction

When the Intoxilyzer 8000 has not been maintained, the results may be thrown out. Without that evidence, it is difficult for the state to prove your guilt. Sometimes the state will offer a reduced charge of reckless driving does not carry the risk associated with a DUI conviction. If you have another DUI conviction later, your prior convictions enhance your penalties. Your conviction penalties may include; fines, ignition interlock device, license suspension or revocation and jail or prison. Multiple DUIs can carry mandatory jail time. Once a driver has three or more DUI convictions, it becomes a felony.

You want to Avoid DUI charges tonight (and always). Fortune Magazine says 111.3 million people watched last year’s Super Bowl. When we watch the big game with friends we may need a ride. Do NOT drink and drive. Here are the top DUI locations for Tampa. If you are charged with a DUI, call a lawyer ASAP Call (813) 222-2220. Before you even start drinking decide how you will get back home. Then you are thinking clearly and you can choose your best option: designate one person to take everyone home, use tow-to-go, take a taxi, use Uber,  Lyft maybe even staying where you are.

What is Important?

You want to enjoy the game but you don’t want to make your life a mess. A DUI Charge is very expensive. The costs include:

• money
  • lost wages,
  • court costs,
  • bail costs,
  • defense costs,
  • if you are adjudicated the increase in insurance costs,
  • sometimes costs associated with education,

• time
  • time getting booked
  • time in court
  • time negotiating how to get back and forth to work or groceries or picking up kids
  • time learning about the charge
  • time deciding what attorney to hire
  • time away from family and friends

• stress
  • stress of the DUI stop with the police
  • stress of being booked into the jail
  • stress of court proceedings
  • stress loss of driving
  • stress of loss of work

You should do everything you can to Avoid a DUI charge. If you still need a DUI attorney, we are ready to help. Casey Ebsary is an expert DUI attorney. Call him (813) 222-2220.

To find out what we say about avoiding DUI charges at other prime times:

gasparilla festival

labor day

4th of July

New Year’s Eve

Easter

Refusal of a Breath Test

Below is video from inside a jail. There a cop is administering Florida’s Implied Consent warning, This warning is 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 arrested for DUI and asked to take a breath test or perform Field Sobriety Exercises?

We have again found out what cops do when 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 topic is 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 a hardship license if he submitted to a breath test. The 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 the test was not influenced by misinformation; the state has failed to prove that submission to test was voluntary. Tthe test results were not allowed in the proceeding. Source: FLW Supp 1703Perd

Refusal of a Breath Test

One DUI defense may come from the implied consent law. The implied consent law says that by driving you have agreed to chemical tests to determine alcohol or drug content. Sometimes police don’t give suspects their options properly. In Florida 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.
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 as evidence in any criminal proceeding.” 316.1932 (1)(a)1.a. (Tests for alcohol, chemical substances, or controlled substances; implied consent; refusal.)