DUI on Private Property in Tampa?

New Hillsborough Court Ruling Clarifies Private Roads and Missing Video Evidence

DUI on Private Property? Many drivers believe that if they are on a private roadway, inside a gated community, or on private property, law enforcement cannot pull them over or investigate them for a DUI.

A fresh appellate decision out of Hillsborough County (March 2, 2026) just smashed that myth, while also clarifying a major rule regarding missing police video evidence.

If you or a loved one is facing a driver’s license suspension in Tampa Bay for refusing a breath test, this new ruling from the 13th Judicial Circuit impacts how your case might be handled.

The Story Behind the Case

Late one evening, Hillsborough County Sheriff’s deputies responded to a 911 call about a severe one-car accident in a local neighborhood. The driver had lost control, hit a tree, deployed the airbags, and heavily damaged the vehicle.

When deputies arrived, they noticed classic signs of impairment: bloodshot eyes, unsteady balance, and a strong odor of alcohol. After performing poorly on field sobriety exercises, the driver was arrested and taken to Central Breath Testing (CBT), where she ultimately refused the breathalyzer.

The driver challenged her license suspension on two major technicalities:

1. The Jurisdiction Defense: The crash happened on a private roadway, and the sheriff’s office did not have a specific written traffic control agreement for that property.
2. The Missing Video Defense: There was no video evidence in the record proving the deputy actually read her the “Implied Consent” warning (the legal warning about the penalties for refusing a breath test).

The Court’s Ruling: Breaking Down the Law

Circuit Judge Mark Wolfe denied the driver’s petition, keeping the license suspension firmly in place. Here is why the court rejected both defenses:

• The Emergency Exception Trumps Gated Streets: The court noted that deputies weren’t hanging out on private property to hand out routine speeding tickets. They were dispatched to an emergency accident with potential injuries. Under Florida common law, police have an inherent right to enter private property to investigate an emergency.
• DUI Laws Apply to “All Lands” in Florida: The court reaffirmed that Florida Statute § 316.193 makes it unlawful to drive under the influence anywhere “within this state.” This phrase is not ambiguous—it covers public highways, private parking lots, and gated community roads alike.
• Paperwork Beats a Lack of Video: The driver argued that because there was no video confirming she was read her rights, the state couldn’t prove it happened. The court disagreed. Florida law (§ 322.2615) only requires a sworn affidavit from the officer stating that the test was requested and refused. Because there was a signed, written implied consent warning in the record, the missing video didn’t matter.

The Takeaway for Tampa Bay Drivers

This 2026 ruling is a stark reminder that a DUI investigation can legally happen anywhere an officer is lawfully present—including your own driveway or neighborhood road if an emergency or accident brings them there. Furthermore, you cannot rely on a lack of police video to automatically throw out a refusal suspension if the officer’s paperwork is in order.

Don’t navigate the complex Hillsborough County court system alone. Protect your right to drive.

Contact W. F. “Casey” Ebsary Jr. today at 813-222-2220 for a hard-hitting, experienced defense.

COMPLETE TEXT OF THE OPINION

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 3401SALL

Licensing — Driver’s license — Suspension — Refusal to submit to breath test — Officer acting outside jurisdiction — Private property — Deputy who was summoned to scene of one-car accident involving injuries on private roadway had jurisdiction to investigate and arrest licensee on private property after noticing indicia of impairment sufficient to create reasonable suspicion that licensee was driving under influence — Written signed implied consent warning in record was competent substantial evidence that warning was in fact read to licensee — Absence of video confirming that the warning was read does not change result

MARGIE LESA SALLOUM, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent. Circuit Court, 13th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Hillsborough County, General Civil Division. Case No. 25-CA-2050. Division B. March 2, 2026. Counsel: Linsey Sims-Bohnenstiehl, Assistant General Counsel, DHSMV, for Respondent.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(MARK WOLFE, J.) This case is before the court on Margie Lesa Salloum’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed March 10, 2025, and Amended Petition filed June 4, 2025 seeking review of the Department’s February 7, 2025 order upholding the suspension of her driving privilege for her refusal to submit to a breath test to determine her blood alcohol level. The petition is timely, and this court has jurisdiction. Rules 9.100(c)(2), and 9.030(c)(3), Fla. R. App. P; §322.31, Fla. Stat. Petitioner contends that the Hillsborough County sheriff’s deputies lacked jurisdiction, in the absence of a written agreement pursuant to section 316.006, Florida Statutes, to conduct an investigation on private property. Petitioner next contends that the hearing officer departed from the essential requirements of law in upholding the suspension in the absence of video evidence confirming that Petitioner was read the implied consent warning, when it was claimed that a video of the deputy giving the warning exists. Because law enforcement was summoned to the scene of an accident involving an injury, as opposed to enforcing traffic laws on private property, and, thereafter, developed reasonable suspicion that a crime had occurred, sheriff’s deputies had jurisdiction to investigate and arrest Petitioner. In addition, the written, signed implied consent warning is competent, substantial evidence that Petitioner was read the implied consent warning in the absence of a video. Accordingly, the petition must be denied.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction to review a decision of the Department upholding or invalidating a suspension is by petition for writ of certiorari to the circuit court in the county in which Petitioner resides or wherein the formal or informal review was conducted. §§ 322.31; 322.2615(13), Fla. Stat. As such, this court has jurisdiction to review the decision upholding the suspension of Petitioner’s driving privilege.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 3, 2024, at approximately 10:41 p.m., law enforcement was dispatched to the scene of a one-car accident with possible injuries at the corner of Brighton Shore Drive and Manns Harbor Drive in unincorporated Hillsborough County. Petitioner was still in the driver’s seat at 10:55 p.m., when law enforcement arrived. Deputy Ventling of the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office conducted an accident investigation, determining that Petitioner lost control of her car and hit a tree. The car was badly damaged and could not be driven after the accident.

During his investigation, Deputy Ventling noted that Petitioner displayed several indicators of impairment, including being unsteady on her feet, bloodshot and watery eyes, and a very strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from her breath. In addition, Petitioner displayed significant emotional swings and had trouble producing requested documentation. Based on these observations, Deputy Garner conducted a DUI investigation. To the extent Petitioner performed standard field sobriety exercises, she performed them poorly. She did not complete them. She also admitted to consuming alcohol before the crash. Petitioner was arrested at 11:36 p.m. and transported to Central Breath Testing where documentary evidence indicates she was read the Implied Consent Warning at 12:06 a.m. on September 4. Petitioner refused to submit to a breath test, therefore, her driving privileges were suspended.

Petitioner requested a formal review of the suspension of her driving privilege. In the formal review, a hearing officer is charged with determining whether law enforcement had probable cause to believe that the person whose driving privileges were suspended was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in this state while under the influence; whether the driver refused to submit to a breath test, and whether she was informed of the consequences of refusing to submit to the breath test. The hearing officer issued an order on February 7, 2025 upholding the suspension. This petition followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court reviews an administrative decision to determine whether Petitioner received procedural due process, whether the essential requirements of the law have been observed, and whether the administrative findings and judgement are supported by competent substantial evidence. City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982).

DISCUSSION

Petitioner raises two issues in her challenge to the upholding of the suspension of her driving privileges. The first is that the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s deputies lacked jurisdiction to conduct an investigation on a private roadway in the absence of a written agreement pursuant to Florida Statute section 316.006. The second is that no competent, substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Petitioner refused to submit to a breath test in the absence of video evidence of the request, where the existence of the video is claimed, but not furnished to the hearing officer.

With regard to law enforcement’s jurisdiction to enter private property to conduct an investigation, the sheriff wasn’t dispatched to conduct traffic control: officers were called by several people to the scene of an accident which resulted in significant property damage, the air bag deployed, and possibly resulted in injuries to the driver. Zeigler v. State, 402 So. 2d 365, 371 (Fla. 1981) (“The right of police to enter and investigate an emergency, without an accompanying intent either to seize or arrest, is inherent in the very nature of their duties as peace officers and derives from the common law.); Campbell v. State, 477 So. 2d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (after defendant called 911, officers were authorized to enter residence where paramedics were assisting her).

Where officers are called to the private property or are otherwise present for purposes other than traffic enforcement, Florida courts have found that the DUI investigation was lawful and have upheld related DUI charges. In Zink v. State, 448 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), a construction foreman called the officer to the scene because Zink was harassing workers at the construction site by trying to run them over with his car. The officer arrived and observed Zink “spinning donuts” on the property. Id. at 1196-97. An investigation and DUI arrest followed. The county court denied Zink’s motion to dismiss his DUI charge based on an argument that he could not be so charged because his offense occurred on private property. The circuit court affirmed the lower court’s denial, and the district court of appeal denied Zink’s petition for certiorari relief. Id. at 1196. The court explained that section 316.193(1)(a) makes it unlawful for a person to drive or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in this state while under the influence of alcohol to the extent that his normal faculties are impaired, and that “it is not objectionable that the Florida Legislature has chosen to apply the statutory prohibition against driving while under the influence of alcohol more broadly throughout the state than certain other prohibitions contained in chapter 316.” Id. at 1197. The court explained that “the phrase ‘within this state’ is not ambiguous and very lucidly indicates the legislature’s intent to encompass all lands in the state” (emphasis added).

Here, Petitioner was suspected of committing a DUI offense on private property after law enforcement and county fire rescue responded to the scene of a one-car accident in which Petitioner was the driver. Extending Petitioner’s argument on this point to its logical conclusion, law enforcement would be barred from investigating crimes occurring on private property. Because that is not the law, this Court finds that law enforcement had jurisdiction to investigate, and, ultimately, arrest Petitioner on the property.

Petitioner next challenges the suspension on the ground that no competent, substantial evidence supports that she refused to provide a breath sample because a video that was supposedly created or included in the record was not in the record. Indeed, no video of events at CBT appear to be in the record.[1] Although Petitioner concedes that documentary evidence supports that Petitioner was given the implied consent warning, Petitioner also seems to make the nonsensical argument that the court must cull the record for evidence that has not been presented to it. The “missing evidence” does not refute that law enforcement gave the warning; rather, it confirms what the documentary evidence already shows, which is that the warning was given. The law does not mandate that a video be provided, even if a video exists. Section 322.2615(2)(a) states that

“Except as provided in paragraph (1)(a), the law enforcement officer shall forward to the department, within 5 days after issuing the notice of suspension, the driver license; an affidavit stating the officer’s grounds for belief that the person was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or chemical or controlled substances; the results of any breath or blood test or an affidavit stating that a breath, blood, or urine test was requested by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer and that the person refused to submit; the officer’s description of the person’s field sobriety test, if any; and the notice of suspension.” (Emphasis added.)

Under section 322.2615(2)(a), an affidavit that Petitioner refused to submit to a breath test is all that is required to be furnished to the hearing officer. Regarding videos generally, section 322.2615(2)(b) permits, but does not mandate, the submission of a video of field sobriety exercises. It is silent on the matter of implied consent.

Petition DENIED.

[1] One video shows Petitioner’s arrival at a facility this court assumes is CBT. That assumption is not confirmed or refuted by the video. No events within the facility are depicted in any video in the court’s possession. Because all of the videos provided to the court lack audio, the subject video does not indicate whether Deputy Garner verbally asked Petitioner to submit to a breath test.

* * *