Understanding Your Rights: When DUI Stop Becomes Unlawful

If you or a loved one are facing DUI charges, it is vital to understand that law enforcement must follow strict constitutional procedures. A recent case, State of Florida v. Mark A. Waszak, highlights a critical legal boundary: the difference between a valid investigatory stop and an unlawful detention. As a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, I have spent decades helping individuals navigate the complexities of these Florida DUI defense cases.

The Background of the Case

In this Lake County, Florida case, law enforcement received a report of a van driving erratically. An officer observed the vehicle crossing the “fog line” twice and initiated a traffic stop, citing reasonable suspicion of impaired driving. While the court agreed that the initial stop was lawful, the subsequent events were problematic. After stopping the vehicle, the officer did not begin a DUI investigation. Instead, they waited for a specialized DUI unit to arrive. The defendant was detained for nearly 15 minutes before any investigation into the alleged DUI even began.Why the Motion to Suppress Was Granted

The defense argued that this delay constituted an unreasonable detention. The court analyzed the situation and made a pivotal distinction:

• Valid Stop: The officer had “founded suspicion” to stop the vehicle based on the tip and their own observations of the driver crossing the fog line.
• Unlawful Detention: While the initial stop was valid, the court ruled that the detention was unconstitutional because the officer failed to begin the investigation immediately. Forcing the defendant to wait for a specific DUI unit without initiating the investigation created an unlawful detention.

Ultimately, the court granted the Defendant’s Amended Motion to Suppress Unlawfully Obtained Evidence, ruling that the detention exceeded the scope of a standard traffic stop. You can learn more about how I evaluate these types of investigations on my About Me page.Protecting Your Rights

This case serves as a reminder that police interactions must be reasonable in scope and duration. If you are worried about what happened during your arrest, or if you are facing a first-time DUI charge, it is essential to examine whether the police followed constitutional protocols during the stop and subsequent detention. If your rights were violated, you may have grounds to suppress evidence.

I invite you to review my full list of practice areas to see how my approach to strategic case preparation can work for you. If you are ready to speak with me directly about your situation, please contact me through my secure online page to schedule a consultation.—–

Full Text of the Order: State of Florida v. Mark A. Waszak

STATE OF FLORIDA, v. MARK A. WASZAK, Defendant.
Circuit Court, 5th Judicial Circuit in and for Lake County.
Case No. 2017-CE-2410. July 12, 2018. Mark A. Nacke, Judge.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE

THIS CAUSE having come before this Court pursuant to the Defendant’s Amended Motion to Suppress Unlawfully Obtained Evidence and the Court having heard the testimony of witnesses and argument of counsel, finds as follows:

On June 24, 2017, the Lake County Sheriff’s Department received a call from a motorist that a white service van had veered into oncoming traffic almost causing an accident. Deputy Holcomb was in the area and located a vehicle matching that description. Deputy Holcomb got behind the vehicle and followed it a short distance. On two occasions, Deputy Holcomb observed the vehicle veer toward the shoulder of the road crossing the white “fog” line. Deputy Holcomb, was suspicious that the driver could be under the influence and he stopped the vehicle. The Defendant was the driver and the only occupant of the vehicle. Deputy Holcomb interacted with the Defendant and noticed that his speech and movements were unusually slow, however, Deputy Holcomb did not notice an odor of alcohol. When asked to step out of the vehicle the Defendant was so unsteady on his feet that Deputy Holcomb had him sit on the bumper of the van. The Sheriff’s Department DUI unit was asked to respond to the location where the Defendant was stopped. Corporal Chessher, of the DUI unit, testified that she arrived at the location in a little less than 15 minutes after the request. Nothing was done concerning the investigation of the DUI until Corporal Chessher arrived. Corporal Chessher was informed of the situation and made contact with the Defendant. After performing some field sobriety exercises the Defendant was arrested for DUI and taken to the Lake County Jail. The Defendant took a breath test for alcohol with negative results. The Defendant refused to provide a urine sample.

The Defendant argues that all the evidenced should be suppressed because Deputy Holcomb had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant and that he was unreasonably detained while waiting for the DUI unit to arrive.

In State v. Carina, 506 So.2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), a law enforcement officer followed the vehicle driven by Mr. Carrillo and observed the vehicle, more than five times, weave from one side of his lane to the other touching the lane boundary lines, but not leaving his lane. Although, not a violation of the traffic laws, it did give the officer a “founded suspicion” that Mr. Carrillo was driving under the influence and a legal basis for an investigatory stop.

In this case, considering the caller; Deputy Holcomb finding a vehicle matching the description the caller gave; and Deputy Holcomb observing the Defendant’s vehicle, on two occasions, within a short period of time, veer toward the shoulder of the road crossing the “fog line,” Deputy Holcomb had a founded or reasonable suspicion that the Defendant was operating his vehicle while under the influence. Deputy Holcomb’s stop was a valid investigatory stop, however, the detention of the Defendant while waiting for Corporal Chessher to arrive without beginning an investigation is an unlawful detention.

It is therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Amended Motion to Suppress Unlawfully Obtained Evidence is granted based upon the illegal detention.