Motions to Suppress in DUI Cases DUI investigations can often provide an individual who has been arrested for DUI with a wide range of opportunities to have that DUI case dismissed based upon the conduct of the police officer. It is important to note, however that the judge nor the prosecutor is going to raise legal issues for a defendant. It is the job of a defendant's attorney to bring deficiencies in the DUI investigation to the attention of the court and to seek redress through filing a motion to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence. A motion to suppress in a DUI case is a defendant's opportunity to put the conduct of the officer or officers who conducted a DUI investigation on trial before the court. Once an issue regarding illegal conduct by the police officer has been raised by a driver's attorney, then the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution who then has an obligation to prove the lawfulness of the officer's conduct to the court. Motions to suppress often provide an excellent opportunity to achieve a successful result in a DUI case for an attorney. When someone is arrested for DUI, their primary concern is almost always going to be preventing that arrest from becoming a conviction. Under Florida law the courts are not permitted to grant a withhold of adjudication in DUI cases which means that anytime that someone takes a plea to a DUI charge of is convicted after trial by a jury, that conviction will become part of their permanent criminal record. Having a DUI conviction can hinder people in their lives in a multitude of ways and it is for that reason that it is of crucial importance to retain a criminal defense attorney who dedicates a substantial portion of their practice to DUI cases. Strong pre-trial motion practice is the key to achieving a successful result in a DUI case. Filing well researched pre-trial motions not only presents an opportunity to have DUI charges dismissed but also provides leverage for bargaining a negotiated resolution which is favorable to the Defendant should the individual not desire to face a jury trial. For a criminal defense attorney, DUI cases present a multitude of issues which are not encountered in other criminal cases. All DUI cases have many "moving parts". and because, there are so many legal issue which are unique to DUI cases, it is crucial for someone who has been arrested for DUI to retain a criminal defense attorney who dedicates a substantial portion of their law practice to DUI cases. Florida law has very strict guidelines with respect to the manner in which law enforcement officers are required to conduct DUI investigations and any deviation from these legal guidelines can present an opportunity for a seasoned DUI defense lawyer to achieve a successful result for their client.
The Stop
The initial contact that a driver who has been arrested for DUI has with the officer who conducted the DUI investigation is subject to legal scrutiny and provides the first opportunity in many cases to achieve a successful result in a DUI case through a motion to suppress. In Florida a police officer must have reasonable to believe that a traffic violation has been committed in order to be legally justified in conducting a traffic stop. A police officer is not permitted to stop motorist based upon a suspicion of "hunch" that the driver of the vehicle is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. When considering the validity of a traffic stop, Florida courts use an objective test which asks only whether any probable cause for the stop existed. (
See Nelson v. State 922 So. 2d 44) For example, my office recently handled a case where a driver was arrested following a traffic stop for allegedly making a lane change without signaling in violation of
Florida Statute 316.155. However, The
Florida Supreme Court has interpreted
section
316.155
to require a signal only when another vehicle will be affected by
the turn. After my I filed a motion to suppress arguing that the stop was illegal, the court found that the facts which formed the foundation of
the stop did not amount to reasonable suspicion permitting an investigatory
stop. The arresting officer did not
reference any other vehicle which was affected by the driver's alleged failure
to signal in the police report. Accordingly, the stop was invalidated by the court, all evidence gathered as a result of the invalid stop was suppressed by the court and all charges were dropped by the state attorney's office.
Sometimes, however the initial contact with the police does not involve a traffic stop for a moving violation. There have been many cases where a police officer has approached a parked car and ended up conducting a DUI investigation which resulted in an arrest. The reason for this is that
Florida's DUI statute
does not punish only driving a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs or alcohol but also prohibits being in "actual physical control" of a motor vehicle while impaired. This mandate has been interpreted broadly by the Florida courts and there have been numerous instances of people who have been convicted of DUI who did not even have the key in the ignition. Florida courts have interpreted this law to mean that if the keys are readily accessible then the driver is in actual physical control of the vehicle as required by the statute. If a person is arrested for DUI and there exists an issue as to whether or not the driver was legally in actual physical control of a motor vehicle then this can often be an issue which can be resolved via a well researched and argued motion to suppress. If the court finds that the driver was not in actual physical control of the vehicle at the time that the police officer made the initial contact then the officer lacked a reasonable suspicion to conduct a DUI investigation and all evidence which was obtained as a result of that invalid investigation must be suppressed by the court which would lead to a dismissal of the DUI charge.
Reasonable Suspicion to Initiate a DUI Investigation
Another instance during a DUI investigation which often provides an opportunity for a DUI attorney to achieve a successful outcome via a motion to suppress is the initiation of the DUI investigation by the police officer. As a general rule, an encounter between a police
officer and a citizen becomes an investigative stop when the citizen is asked
to exit a vehicle. (
See
Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d
185 (Fla. 1993) ) Thus, Florida courts have taken the view that a DUI investigation has begun the moment that a driver is asked to step out of their vehicle. The Supreme Court of Florida has stated that the police may temporarily detain a driver in order to conduct a DUI investigation only upon reasonable
suspicion that the driver was operating or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired. The purpose of the DUI investigation is for the sole purpose of determining whether probable cause exists to arrest the driver for DUI. Reasonable suspicion to initiate a DUI investigation also cannot be based upon a hunch that a driver is impaired. The law enforcement officer conducting the DUI investigation must be able to point to articulable observations that he made which support a basis for a reasonable suspicion of DUI. Bloodshot or glassy eyes, slurred speech, and confusion are some of the other common observations that the police use to justify reasonable suspicion to conduct a DUI investigation. Florida courts have agreed that a combination of factors
such as speeding, odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes can give rise to “reasonable
suspicion”, however if these observations are not properly noted by the arresting officer them they may provide an opportunity to achieve a successful outcome in the case. In practice, many DUI investigations are initiated simply because the police officer detects the odor of alcohol, however Florida courts have taken the position that the mere odor of alcohol by itself is insufficient to justify initiating a DUI investigation. (
See
Santiago v. State, 133 So. 3d 1159) For example, my office once handled a cases where the driver was arrested for DUI following a car accident with injuries. The police officer who was conducting the accident investigation detected the odor of alcohol and initiated a DUI investigation as well and ultimately arrested the driver for DUI. After filing a motion to suppress, the court ruled that since the police officer only detected the odor of alcohol before initiating the DUI investigation, that the DUI investigation was initiated without the requisite reasonable suspicion and that all evidence which was gathered as a result of the invalid investigation must be suppressed. This resulted in the charge of DUI being dismissed by the prosecutor's office.
Under Florida law, a police officer can arrest a person for misdemeanor DUI in
three circumstances: (1) "the officer witnesses each element of a the crime," (2) the officer is investigating an 'accident' and
develops probable cause to charge DUI, or (3) "the officer calls upon
another for assistance and the combined observations of the two or more
officers are united to establish the probable cause to the arrest. (See
Sawyer v. State, 905 So. 2d 232 (2nd DCA 2005) ) Except in cases of an accident where an accident investigation is being conducted, it is required that the police witness the allegedly impaired driver operating or otherwise being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. If a police officer arrests an individual for DUI and the police did not witness that person driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle and the driver was not involved in an accident, then legally the police are without the requisite reasonable suspicion to initiate a DUI investigation. My office recently handled a case where a Mcdonald's employee called he police to report someone that they believed to be impaired at the drive thru. When the police arrived, they found the individual inside of the restaurant ordering food. The police then conducted a DUI investigation and arrested the person for DUI. After filing a motion to suppress, the court ruled that the officer did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion to initiate a DUI investigation because the officer did not witness the person driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle. All evidence gathered during the DUI investigation was suppressed by the court and the charge of DUI was dropped by the state attorney's office.
In the context of an accident
Fla. Stat. §§ 316.066
(1) and (2)
requires the driver of a vehicle to make a written report of a crash
if it involves bodily injury, the death of a human being, or property damage of
at least $500. Any statements made by a
defendant to law enforcement in compliance with that requirement cannot be used
against him in either a civil or a criminal proceeding unless and until the
officer a) advises the driver that the crash investigation has become a
criminal investigation and (b) advises him of his Miranda rights. This statute dictates that the police must make it known to a driver when and if they are turning a crash investigation into a DUI investigation. This "accident report" privilege requires that Miranda warnings be read to a driver when that transition occurs. A failure to read Miranda can then provide an opportunity for a DUI attorney to file a motion to suppress and have any subsequent statements suppressed and not be permitted to be introduced into trial.
Probable Cause to Arrest a Driver for DUI As in all criminal cases, a valid DUI arrest must be
supported by probable cause. If an arrest for DUI is not supported by probable cause, then upon filing a motion to suppress in the case, all evidence which was gathered as a result of that illegal arrest is will become inadmissable in court. This evidence will usually consist of blood, breath or urine test results or evidence of a refusal as well as video which is usually taken at the blood alcohol testing facility.
In most cases, when a police officer initiates a DUI investigation, he or she will request that the driver perform a series of roadside sobriety tests. The police officer usually tells the officer that the purpose of conducting the tests are to dispel any notion that the driver might be impaired but they are in fact conducted for the complete opposite purpose. Field sobriety tests are conducted by the police for the sole purpose of gathering evidence to prove to the court that there was probable cause to arrest the driver for DUI. It is for this reason that I generally advise against agreeing to perform roadside sobriety tests under most circumstances. Unlike with submitting to blood, breath or urine tests, the
Florida Implied Consent law
does not require a driver to submit to roadside sobriety tests. Florida law provides penalties for refusing a blood, breath or urine test but there are not penalties for refusing to perform roadside sobriety tests. The tests are designed to be difficult and the officers often administer the tests in a way which confuses the driver. Roadside sobriety exercises are difficult or impossible to perform for many people when they are stone sober. It makes no sense for a driver to submit to providing evidence against themselves when the law does not state that they are required to.
For a long time, law enforcement officers were free to write up their police reports as they pleased and they were free to exaggerate and fabricate with regard to a driver's performance on field sobriety tests until their hearts were content, however the increased use of dashboard and body cameras now provides a second and more reliable account of a person's performance on field sobriety tests. In practice I have seen a great many cases where there is a conflict between what the arresting officer claims to have observed and what has actually been documented on the video evidence. This can often be fertile ground for an experienced DUI attorney to win a successful result for their client through a motion to suppress. It is quite common for me to see a police report where an arresting officer has provided a description of a driver who is incoherent and can barely hold themselves up only to see a video which does in no way supports those assertions.
Breath Tests and Refusals In cases of a DUI refusal,
Fla. Stat.
§316.1932
requires that the implied consent
warning be read to the driver in order for the refusal to be admissible in
court. § 316.1932, commonly known as Florida's implied consent law,
addresses the circumstances under which a driver
is required to submit to chemical testing by breath, blood, or urine, and when
a refusal to submit can result in a license suspension. Despite the fact that Florida law provides for penalties for refusing a blood, breath or urine test, it may still often be in a driver's best interests to do so. Without breath results, the prosecution has a much harder job to prove to a jury that an individual was operating a motor vehicle while impaired and the penalties provided under the Implied Consent statute are favorable when compared to the penalties and collateral consequences that go along with a DUI conviction in Florida. The chances of ultimately achieving a favorable result in a DUI case are greatly increased when an individual does not provide a blood, breath or urine test.
The Florida Implied Consent law requires that a police officer read the implied consent warning to a driver before an alleged refusal can be used as evidence against them. If a police officer neglects to read the implied consent warning, then all evidence regarding the alleged refusal can be suppressed by the court through a motion to suppress. By the same token, when a driver provides a blood, breath or urine sample, it must be voluntary. If a person provides a breath sample and they did so because they were coerced or threatened by the police, then those breath results can be suppressed by the court also through a motion to suppress.
Getting a Good Result These are just a few of the numerous opportunities that arise during the course of a DUI investigation which may provide an experienced DUI lawyer with a legal basis to achieve a favorable result in the case through a motion to suppress. Effective pre-trial motion practice requires extensive investigation and research into all of the facts and legal issue that are presented in a DUI case. The advantage of retaining an attorney who is experienced in DUI work is that an experienced and seasoned DUI lawyer is going to be far more likely to spot and attack the deficiencies in the DUI investigation to their client's benefit. If you or someone that you care about has been arrested for DUI , my office offers free consultations to prospective DUI cases. Quinn Law, P.A. can be reached at (954) 463-0440.
