Jacksonville Criminal Lawyer Blog

In Florida, we have what is called implied consent which means that any person who obtains a driver's license in Florida consents to submit to an alcohol test where a police officer makes a valid stop and has probable cause to believe the person is driving under the influence of alcohol. This usually takes the form of a request by the police officer to blow into a breathalyzer at the jail after the person has been arrested for DUI. Whatever the reading is, the state will usually seek to use that evidence against the defendant in court in the DUI case. Where the breathalyzer reading is below the legal limit of 0.08, the police are not likely to unarrest the defendant, for lack of a better word.

A person who has been arrested for DUI can refuse the breathalyzer test. The police will not force a person to blow into the breathalyzer to get a breathalyzer result. In some cases, the police officer can request a test of his/her blood rather than a test of his/her breath. In a recent DUI case that went up to the United States Supreme Court, the DUI suspect refused to submit to a blood alcohol test and the police officer took his blood anyway to test it for alcohol content without a search warrant. The DUI case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

The criminal defense lawyer argued that to take the defendant's blood was a search and seizure under the Constitution, and it was unreasonable without a search warrant signed by a judge. The state argued that there was an exception to the general rule that the police need a search warrant for a search and seizure. Generally, the state needs a search warrant to search someone, including taking their blood. However, there are exceptions to the search warrant requirement. If there are emergency circumstances, such as the risk of losing evidence if the search is delayed, the state may be able to conduct a search without a search warrant. In this DUI case, the state argued that the blood concentration dissipates as time goes by so the police officer needed to get the blood for alcohol testing as soon as possible.

The Supreme Court disagreed. They held that this argument was not sufficient to eliminate the search warrant requirement for blood in a DUI case. There are other circumstances where the state can take blood from a defendant in a DUI case, or test blood that was already taken by medical personnel, but in a standard DUI case where the DUI suspect refuses to give a blood sample, the police cannot force a blood sample without a proper search warrant.

In just about all criminal cases in Florida, a person will be arrested by a member of law enforcement who is properly working in that jurisdiction. For instance, if a person is speeding in Duval County (which is in Jacksonville) Florida and a police officer plans to make a traffic stop and possibly conduct a DUI investigation, the driver will likely be stopped by a Jacksonville Sheriff's Office officer. If a person commits a theft in Orange Park, Florida, he/she will likely be arrested by a member of the Clay County Sheriff's Office. There are exceptions, of course. The Florida Highway Patrol has jurisdiction all over the state so an FHP officer might stop a person in any city or county in Florida. Additionally, if a Jacksonville Sheriff's Office officer sees a person commit a crime in Duval County/Jacksonville and there is a car chase that goes north into Nassau County, the JSO officer will not likely stop at the county line and let the suspect get away. Of course, Nassau County police officers will become involved once the suspect gets into Nassau County.

There are other examples where a police officer can make an arrest for a crime outside of his/her jurisdiction. There is something in Florida called a Mutual Assistance Agreement between police agencies whereby police agencies can have their officers assist the others by formal agreement. If there is a proper Mutual Assistance Agreement, a police officer can make an arrest for DUI or other crimes if the police officer is complying with the Agreement. After such an arrest, the state has the burden of proving that the arrest was in compliance with the Mutual Assistance Agreement. The state has to actually present the formal agreement in court, prove that the agreement was in effect at the time of the arrest and prove that the police officer strictly complied with the terms of the agreement. If the state does not prove each of those elements, the arrest and any evidence obtained as a result of the arrest by the out of jurisdiction officer will likely be inadmissible. However, if the state can prove these elements, the fact that the police officer was out of his/her jurisdiction would likely have no effect on the state's case.

In just about all DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol) cases in Florida, the police officer is going to request that the driver submit to field sobriety exercises. These are very difficult coordination and balancing tests that are often given to the suspect in parking lots or on the side of the road in poor lighting. The suspect is often nervous because the police officer, who is the sole judge of the field sobriety tests, already thinks he/she is drunk or he/she probably would not have asked the driver to take the field sobriety tests in the first place. The conditions under which a DUI suspect takes the field sobriety tests are far from ideal, and some people are not good at difficult balancing and coordination tests under any circumstances.

Anyone is allowed to refuse a field sobriety test. There are no repercussions with the department of motor vehicles or the courts, such as a driver's license suspension, for refusing a field sobriety test. There may be very good reasons to refuse a field sobriety test- any injury, poor conditions, poor lighting, fatigue, nervousness, a police officer who seems overly aggressive or just a fear of not doing well based on all of the circumstances.

However, the best reason to refuse a field sobriety test may be that the field sobriety exercises are not videotaped. When a DUI suspect performs the field sobriety tests, there is only one judge, and that is the police officer who already suspects the driver is impaired from alcohol or drugs. The police officer will prepare a report, and if he/she does not think the driver performs well, he/she will write a very incriminating report. Why should a DUI suspect trust a police officer's completely subjective findings during a field sobriety test when that test may be a crucial part of the state's DUI case? If the police officer does not explain the tests well, how does a DUI suspect convey that to a judge or jury? Once the case gets to trial, it is the DUI defendant's word against the police officer's word. Because the police officer fails to bring a video camera to the DUI investigation, the defendant may be at the mercy of a biased police officer with no way of defending him/herself during a field sobriety test other than a he said/she said contest. Because of this subjective component to a DUI case, a driver should really think twice before taking a field sobriety test that is not recorded by a video camera.

In a recent DUI case south of Jacksonville, the defendant was stopped for speeding. When the police officer spoke to the defendant, he reported a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot, watery eyes and slurred speech. These happen to be the same observations that seem to appear in every DUI arrest report in every case. The police officer asked the suspect to submit to field sobriety exercises. Because the police officer had a video in his car, the driver agreed. The driver did well on the field sobriety tests, but the police officer still arrested him for DUI because the police officer already decided he was drunk.

The DUI case was ultimately dismissed. The police officer had a right to request the driver to submit to the field sobriety exams based on his purely subjective observations, but because the defendant did well on the field sobriety tests, as confirmed only on the video, the judge threw the case out because there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI at that point. If there was no video, you can be sure the police officer would have reported that the defendant did poorly on the field sobriety tests. However, because there was a video, the defendant had some objective evidence to defend himself with in court, and this was the difference between a possible DUI conviction and a DUI case being thrown out.

Most DUI cases in Florida are initiated when a police officer sees a driver committing some sort of traffic violation and then pulls him/her over. If the police officer feels as if there is evidence that the driver has been drinking, the police officer will likely begin a DUI investigation. However, there are DUI cases where the defendant was stopped without violating any traffic laws.

In a recent DUI case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the driver drove down a road that was blocked by emergency vehicles farther down. Rather than turn around, the defendant kept driving down the road. The defendant later said that he felt like he had enough room to drive around the emergency vehicles. While this was not the smartest move when the driver had been drinking, he had not violated any traffic laws when he was stopped by the police. The polcie officer saw him driving down the road that was apparently blocked to see why the driver kept driving rather than turning around. After talking to the driver, the police officer initiated a DUI investigation and ultimately arrested him for DUI.

The defendant's criminal defense lawyer challenged the stop by arguing that the police officer did not have a legal basis to stop the defendant because no traffic laws were violated. In a DUI case, if the initial stop is not legal, then whatever evidence the police officer discovers after the initial stop will likely be thrown out. Likewise, without such evidence, the DUI case will likely be dismissed.

However, the court found that the stop was valid and the DUI case could proceed. In addition to stopping drivers for violating traffic laws, police officers can also stop drivers under the community caretaker doctrine. The court found that under these unusual circumstances, the police officer could stop the driver for the protection of the driver and/or the emergency personnel who had blocked the road. If there is a reasonable basis to stop a driver to make sure the driver and/or others are safe, then the stop may be legal. After the stop, if the police officer discovers evidence of DUI or other criminal activity, the police officer will be able to investigate further.

When a person signs up for a driver's license in Florida, he/she agrees to consent to a breathalyzer test administered by the police if the police have probable cause to believe that person is driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that his/her normal faculties are impaired. This is what is referred to as the implied consent law. By accepting the privilege of driving in Florida, the driver impliedly consents to take the breathalyzer test after a legitimate DUI arrest. Of course, people refuse the breathalyzer test for any number of reasons after a DUI arrest, and the police cannot actually force someone to take the breathalyzer test. However, if the DUI arrest was valid and the driver refuses the breath alcohol test, the state can administer greater penalties, such as a longer driver's license suspension, and the state can argue to the jury at a DUI trial that the driver refused the breathalyzer test because he/she knew he/she was drunk and would blow over the 0.08 legal limit. The defendant and criminal defense lawyer can argue other, perfectly innocent and valid reasons why he/she refused the breathalyzer test, and ultimately the issue would be for a jury to decide. In your average DUI investigation by the police, there may be perfectly valid reasons to refuse a breathalyzer test depending on how the police officer is conducting the DUI investigation and arrest.

In addition to a breathalyzer test, the police can obtain a blood sample for a blood alcohol test in some situations. This would not normally apply in a routine DUI arrest after a regular traffic stop where a breathalyzer test is feasible, but a blood test may be applicable after a serious accident that involves an injury or death. In the case of a serious accident, where the suspected driver goes to the hospital for serious injuries, the police may request a blood sample to test for blood alcohol content because the breathalyzer test at the police station is not practical. Additionally, the medical staff may take the suspected driver's blood and test it for alcohol content for medical reasons. In the former case, if the driver refuses the blood draw, the state can later argue at trial that the driver refused the blood draw because he/she knew that he/she was guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. If the state gets the blood test results via subpoena after the blood is drawn for medical purposes, the implied consent law does not apply and the state cannot argue any presumption that the driver was impaired by alcohol. However, in either case, the state can subpoena blood test results from the hospital if the medical provider took a blood sample and tested it for alcohol for medical reasons.

In most driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) cases in Florida, the police officer will ask the driver to consent to a breath, or breathalyzer, test which uses the driver's breath to try and measure the driver's blood alcohol content. The legal blood alcohol limit in Florida is 0.08. Also, normally, the police officer cannot request that a driver take a blood test to determine the driver's blood alcohol content. The driver can request an independant blood alcohol test, but it is not something that the police officer typically mentions in a normal DUI investigation.

One exception is when the suspected drunk driver was involved in an accident with serious injuries or death that involves a hospital visit. In those cases, the police officer can request that the driver provide a blood sample to later test for alcohol content when the driver appears in the hospital for treatment and a urine or breath test is not practical. When a driver was involved in a serious accident involving injury or death, the police officer can request a blood draw to test for alcohol at the hospital.

What if the driver refuses, but the medical staff takes his/her blood for medical reasons? In a recent DUI case near Jacksonville, Florida, a driver was involved in a single vehicle accident and was taken to the hospital. The responding police officer suspected that the driver was impaired by alcohol and requested a blood sample to test for blood alcohol at the hospital. The driver refused to provide a blood sample for blood alcohol testing, but the hospital staff did take blood for medical reasons. Later, the State subpoenaed the blood taken by the hospital and all blood test results performed by the hospital.

The criminal defense lawyer for the DUI case objected saying the medical blood tests were not admissible because the driver refused and the implied consent law does not allow the State to force a blood alcohol test. However, the court disagreed with the criminal defense attorney and allowed the State to obtain the blood alcohol results that were done for medical purposes from the hospital and use them at the DUI trial against the defendant.

As a result, the State has two ways to get blood to test for a driver's blood alcohol level after a serious accident. The police officer can request a blood sample and the driver agrees, or the State can later get blood test results from the hospital via a subpoena if the hospital takes blood and tests it for medical purposes.

As an initial matter, people need to understand that they can be arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (i.e. DUI) even if the police never see them driving a vehicle. If a person is in actual physical control of the vehicle, that is sufficient for a DUI arrest if the person is impaired. The classic case of actual physical control is when the police officer sees a person in his/her vehicle with the keys in the ignition, whether the vehicle is running or not. In those cases, the state has a valid argument that the defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle and guilty of DUI although no one was actually driving the vehicle at the time.

However, the police cannot just detain a person who is laying down in or sleeping in a vehicle whether the keys are in the ignition or not. A common DUI case occurs when the police get a call about, or see, someone apparently drunk or asleep in a vehicle parked somewhere. The police officer will approach the vehicle and see that the person is asleep or passed out in the driver's seat. The police officer can assume the driver is passed out drunk, but without specific evidence that the person has been drinking or using drugs, the police officer cannot act on that assumption alone. The police officer can knock on the window and ask the driver some questions to investigate further. However, based on this evidence alone, the police officer cannot tell the driver to get out of the vehicle, tell the driver to take the keys out of the ignition or block the driver's vehicle with his/her own police vehicle.

The bottom line is the police officer cannot force someone to do something or give the person any indication that he/she cannot leave based on an assumption that the driver is impaired from alcohol or drugs. If, after a consensual discussion with the driver, the police officer develops evidence that the person has been drinking or using drugs (such as odor of alcohol or incriminating statements), then the police officer can ask the driver to turn off and step out of the vehicle. However, without specific evidence of impairment, detaining the driver for further investigation or arresting him/her for DUI is improper and should result in the DUI case getting thrown out.

Every now and then the police will set up DUI checkpoints or roadblocks late at night on the weekends. At these roadblocks, the police will stop a vehicle at certain specified intervals (for instance, every 5th vehicle) and check for a driver's license, insurance and possible impairment from alcohol or drugs. These DUI checkpoints are often set up in areas where people are driving from bars or clubs. Years ago, criminal defense lawyers challenged whether these DUI roadblocks are Constitutional as they are impositions on a person's freedom without any prior indication that the person is committing a crime or breaking a traffic law. The courts have found that DUI roadblocks are legal but only if they follow certain specific rules and minimize the restraint on a driver's freedom. One reason for the strict rules for DUI checkpoints is to take a lot of the discretion away from the police officers. The courts want to avoid a situation where the police officers have discretion to do whatever they want at a DUI checkpoint.

In a DUI case south of Jacksonville, Florida the defendant was arrested for DUI after she was stopped at a DUI checkpoint. The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the stop of the defendant, and the evidence of the DUI obtained after the stop, because the DUI roadblock was not conducted according to the strict requirements. Before every DUI checkpoint is set up, the police must prepare a set of written guidelines that will be followed during the DUI roadblock to make sure neutral criteria will be used for stopping the vehicles. In this case, the guidelines were submitted, but they indicated that the police were going to stop every third vehicle unless changed by the supervisor. This is not a legal DUI roadblock. The whole idea is to avoid the use of discretion by the police officers to stop whichever cars they want. If the supervisor can change the rate of stopping vehicles without giving a reason, it gives the police too much discretion. Additionally, the police did not follow the regulations because the DUI roadblock ended at a different time than previously indicated and they began stopping every vehicle after a few hours.

Because the police did not submit proper DUI checkpoint guidelines and did not even follow the ones they did submit, the DUI checkpoint was not legal and the defendant's DUI case was thrown out.

In Florida, DUI arrests are most commonly made by police when they observe someone driving erratically or violating a traffic law, initiate a traffic stop and observe signs that the driver is impaired from alcohol or drugs. However, many DUI arrests result from situations where the police officer never sees the person driving at all. A person commits a DUI when he/she operates a motor vehicle while his/her normal faculties are impaired from alcohol or drugs. A DUI can also be committed when a person is in actual physical control of a vehicle while impaired. Actual physical control can mean many things, but it generally means that the person has the ability to operate the vehicle, even if he/she is not doing so when encountered by the police officer. A defense to being in actual, physical control of the vehicle, and the DUI charge itself, is that the vehicle was not capable of being operated. As an obvious example, if the police officer approached a person drunk in the front seat of a vehicle but the engine had been removed and was being worked on in the garage, the vehicle would not be operable and a DUI charge would not be appropriate.

Cases that are less clear involve the police coming upon a person who is having some sort of car trouble on the road. In a DUI case near Jacksonville, Florida, the police officer approached the defendant's vehicle that was stopped on the street due to a flat tire. The officer ultimately arrested the defendant for DUI. The defendant's criminal defense lawyer defended the case by arguing that the vehicle was inoperable due to the flat tire. The defendant lost the DUI case because he apparently admitted to the police officer that he was driving the vehicle up to the point of the flat tire and after he was drinking at the bar.

This was a situation where the defendant talked himself into a DUI conviction. Because the defendant's statements indicated that the vehicle was operable just prior to the blown tire, the conviction for DUI was upheld.

In Florida, many people assume they are only at risk for getting a driving under the influence of alcohol charge (DUI) when they are caught driving an automobile by the police while impaired. However, there are other ways to get a DUI in Florida. One kind of DUI case that is not uncommon is when a person is just sitting in the driver's seat of a parked car with the keys in the vehicle while impaired. There have even been DUI charges for people riding lawnmowers or bicycles.

In a recent case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the defendant was stopped by police for riding a bicycle while apparently impaired from alcohol. The police officer went through his normal DUI investigation and ultimately made the DUI arrest. Under Florida law, a person can be convicted of DUI if he/she operates a "vehicle" while impaired from alcohol or drugs. Florida law includes a bicycle within the definition of "vehicle" under the DUI laws. These cases are rare, but when someone is convicted of DUI on a bicycle, the penalties are the same as they are for automobile DUI's. That includes a mandatory driver's license suspension although you obviously do not need a driver's license to operate a bicycle.

When a person is driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs to the extent that his/her normal faculties are impaired and gets into an accident, the DUI charge becomes much more serious. If another person is seriously injured in the accident, the driver will likely be charged with DUI with serious bodily injury which is a felony. If a person dies as a result of the accident, the driver will likely be charged with DUI manslaughter which is a first degree felony in Florida and often comes with a significant prison sentence if the defendant is convicted of the crime.

However, proving a DUI manslaughter case in Florida is not as simple as proving there was an accident, someone died in the accident and one of the drivers was drunk. The state must prove that the defendant's impairment caused or contributed to the accident and the death. In other words, if the accident would likely have occurred even if the driver was completely sober and/or the accident was not the defendant's fault, then the state cannot prove a DUI manslaughter case.

In a recent DUI manslaughter case near Jacksonville, Florida, the accident reconstructionist experts who looked at the crash determined that the victim must have been doing a wheelie on his motorcycle when he was hit by the defendant who had been drinking. The victim was driving his motorcycle at about 85 miles per hour and was not wearing a helmet. Because the accident happened, if the victim was doing a wheelie prior to the crash and driving at that speed, there is a good chance the the defendant would not have even seen the motorcycle because its headlight would have been pointed upwards and difficult for oncoming traffic to see. Basically, because the way the accident likely happened, the state could not prove that the defendant was at fault in the accident nor could the state prove that the defendant's impairment caused or contributed to the crash. As a result, in this case, even though there was a crash, someone died and the defendant was impaired from alcohol, the charge of DUI manslaughter was thrown out because the impairment did not cause or contribute to the crash. The victim's own reckless driving apparently caused this crash, and the defendant is not criminally liable for it.

In a DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) case in Florida, the state must prove that the defendant was driving the vehicle or at least in actual, physical control of the vehicle while impaired. In most cases, this is easy as most DUI cases start when the police officer pulls the driver over for a traffic infraction. In accident cases, it can be more difficult for the state even when it seems obvious the defendant was driving. For instance, when a police officer responds to the scene of an accident, he/she usually has no evidence to suggest alcohol or drugs were involved. The police officer will initiate a traffic crash investigation and get a statement from the presumed driver. During the traffic crash investigation, nothing the driver says about driving or impairment or anything else incriminating can be used against the driver if the police officer ultimately arrests the driver for DUI or another crime. This is called the accident report privilege.

Additionally, if the police officer responds to an accident and the driver is already out of the vehicle, the state may not be able to prove the driver was in fact driving while impaired from alcohol or drugs. In a recent DUI case near Jacksonville, Florida, the police officer responded to a one vehicle crash, and there were four people standing around the vehicle. Ultimately, the driver admitted he was driving, but none of the other people confirmed it and there was no other evidence to establish that he was driving. The police officer arrested him for DUI, but the case was thrown out.

In criminal cases in Florida, a person's confession alone is not sufficient to convict a person of a crime. In this case, the only evidence the state had that the defendant was driving was his own admission. Without any other independent evidence to corroborate that statement, the statement was not admissible to establish the defendant was driving. As a result, there was insufficient admissible evidence to prove the DUI, and the case was dropped.

In Florida, the police have a right to expect a person to submit to a breath alcohol test, or breathalyzer test, when they make a valid arrest for DUI. The law of informed consent means that a person agrees that he/she will submit to a breathalyzer test after a valid DUI arrest. Of course, the police will not force a person to submit to a breathalyzer test, and a person can refuse to take the breathalyzer test, but theoretically, a person legitimately arrested for DUI is supposed to take the breathalyzer test.

On the other hand, a breathalyzer test after a valid DUI arrest may be thrown out of court if the police officer uses misinformation, incorrect statements of the law or false promises to get the person to submit to a breathalyzer test. In Florida, not everyone understands how the breathalyzer test is done in the context of a DUI investigation and arrest. The police do not use the breathalyzer test as a factor to determine whether they will arrest you for DUI. They only administer the breathalyzer test after they have arrested you and taken you to the jail. If the breathalyzer test is favorable to the defendant, they do not "unarrest" you at that point and let you go home. It is just one factor in the DUI prosecution to follow. If the breathalyzer test is high, they use that against you to prove you were drunk. If the breathalyzer test is low, they downplay it and try to use other evidence to prove you were drunk. Because the breathalyzer test is done after the DUI arrest and after the person is taken to jail, many people refuse to take the breathalyzer test, failing to see how it will help them if the police officer has already decided to arrest him/her.

In a recent DUI case near Jacksonville, Florida, the defendant was arrested for DUI and taken to the jail. At the jail, the police officer asked the defendant if he would submit to a breathalyzer test. The defendant asked the police officer if there was anything he could do to get out of jail. The police officer indicated that the defendant could leave the jail if his blood alcohol level got below 0.08, the legal limit. The defendant then took the breathalyzer test.

The defendant's criminal defense attorney filed a motion to suppress the breathalyzer test results. He argued that the police never let people go even when they blow under a 0.08 on the breathalyzer test. As a result, the police officer lied to the defendant to get him to submit to the breathalyzer test. The police officer who testified at the hearing was unable to provide any examples of police officers letting a DUI suspect out of jail for blowing under a 0.08, nor was there a policy indicating that would happen. Because the police officer lied about letting him go if his blood alcohol level was below 0.08, the breathalyzer test results were thrown out of the DUI case.

In Florida, a person can be arrested for DUI if he/she drives a motor vehicle while impaired from alcohol or drugs. A person can also be arrested for DUI if he/she is not driving if the person is in actual physical control of the vehicle. This has been interpreted to mean being in the driver's seat with the keys in the ignition or with the keys within arm's reach. Another issue that arises is whether the vehicle can be operated. If a person is in the driver's seat of a vehicle with the keys but the engine has been removed, obviously the vehicle cannot be operated and a DUI arrest would not stand. However, if a person is in a vehicle with the keys and the vehicle is out of gas, Florida courts have upheld DUI arrests because a person could easily go and get some gas and the vehicle would be readily operable.

In a recent DUI case near Jacksonville, Florida, a defendant was arrested for DUI and testified that he missed a turn and tried to make a u-turn on his motorcycle. While doing so, he drove his motorcycle into a ditch filled with water. His motorcycle shut off, and he tried to remove it from the ditch without success. He walked to a nearby bar to get a friend to help him retrieve the motorcycle. He also testified that while waiting for the friend, he had a few drinks at the bar. After the drinks, the defendant and his friend went to the ditch and were pulling the motorcycle out when a police officer arrived. The police officer decided that the defendant was impaired from alcohol and arrested the defendant for DUI.

The criminal defense lawyer ultimately had the DUI case thrown out. The state could not prove defendant was ever driving or in actual physical control of the motorcycle. Arguably a person could be in actual physical control of a motorcycle if he is pulling it out of a ditch and he has the keys. However, in this case, the motorcycle was inoperable because it was driven into a ditch filled with water. As a result, the motorcycle could not be started and could not be operated.

In Florida, the DUI laws have become more and more severe over the years. The license suspension penalties that go with DUI convictions have also become more severe over the years. If a person gets a fourth DUI conviction, his/her driving privileges will be permanently suspended. This seems to be a fairly straightforward rule- four DUI convictions equals no more driving, ever. However, there can be questions about convictions of similar drinking and driving laws from other states. Not every state has the same DUI laws. In another state, the drunk driving laws may be called something else and they may have different elements and requirements. Alcohol-related conduict may be legal in one state and a criminal violation in another.

In Florida, the law says that a person with four convictions for DUI, or a similar alcohol-related traffic offense in another state, will result in a permanent revocation of driving privileges. As a result, someone could have a conviction from another state of an alcohol related offense that would not rise to the level of a DUI in Florida, but if a Florida court considers it similar enough to Florida's DUI laws, that will count as a conviction that could lead to a permanent license suspension. .

We have handled a lot of DUI cases in Florida that start when a police officer sees a person asleep in the driver's seat of a vehicle. This scenario often results in a DUi arrest, although the police often do not follow the rules in making the DUI arrest. First, it should be noted that in Florida, a person can be arrested for DUI even though he/she is not driving. A person commits a DUI in Florida if he/she is driving or if he/she is in actual physical control of the vehicle. Actual physical control of a vehicle under the Florida DUI laws has been interpreted to mean being in the driver's seat with the keys in the ignition (whether the vehicle is running or not) or being in the driver's seat with the keys within arm's reach.

However, when a police officer sees a person sleeping in his/her vehicle, that police officer is limited in how he/she can investigate the driver. The police officer may assume a person who is asleep in the driver's seat while the car is running is drunk, but there are other explanations for this scenario. The person could be tired, sick or just taking a break with the air conditioning and/or radio on. There is nothing illegal about sleeping in a car off of the road while the vehicle is on. A police officer cannot detain a person based on an assumption that a person is committing a crime. Because sleeping in a vehicle that is running is not a crime and does not necessarily mean the person is drunk, a police officer cannot approach the person and detain him/her without specific evidence that a crime is being committed.

In a recent DUI case near Jacksonville, Florida, a police officer saw the defendant asleep in the driver's seat of a running vehicle that was parked in a parking spot. The police officer assumed he was drunk but had no specific evidence to support that assumption. The police officer approached the defendant, parked directly behind his vehicle, shined a spotlight on the defendant, and then told him to roll his window down. After the defendant compiled, the police officer said he smelled an odor of alcohol coming from the defendant, saw bloodshot and glassy eyes, heard slurred speech and all of the usual observations police officers make in every DUI case. The police officer then arrested the defendant for DUI.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the DUI because the initial detention of the defendant was illegal. If the initial stop or detention is illegal, the subsequent evidence found and observed by the police officer is not admissible in court. In this case, the court found that the police officer parking right behind the defendant, shining his spotlight on him and telling him to roll down his window was a detention. The defendant could assume he was not free to leave at that point. Because the police officer did not have any specific evidence the defendant was committing a crime when he was detained (just a presumption), the detention by the police officer was found to be illegal.

First, I suppose we should note that in Florida, a person can be arrested and convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) for riding a bicycle while impaired from alcohol or drugs. It would certainly be bad luck to get a criminal conviction for DUI in Florida for drunk driving of a bicycle, but it could potentially happen.

If a person is arrested for DUI while on a bicycle, the DUI trial would present different issues from the regular motor vehicle DUI case. In a DUI case involving a motor vehicle, the police officer is going to ask the driver to submit to a breathalyzer test to try and determine the driver's blood alcohol content. The implied consent law in Florida provides that when a person agrees to accept the privileges of driving, he/she also agrees to submit to a breathalyzer test after a valid arrest for DUI while driving a motor vehicle. This is what implied consent means. Now, a person can still refuse to blow in the breathalyzer and cannot be forced to submit to a breathalyzer test, however there are certain penalties that come with the breathalyzer refusal because of the implied consent law. One penalty is an increased license suspension if the police officers complied with the DUI laws.

Another penalty is that during the DUI trial, the state can try to use the refusal against the defendant. The state will present evidence that the driver was asked to submit to the breathalyzer test and refused to do so. The state will be permitted to argue that the defendant refused the breathalyzer test because he/she was drunk and knew he/she would fail it. Of course, there are a number of reasons why a person would refuse to submit to a breath test and the criminal defense lawyer has a right to argue them, but the state can make their argument as well.

In this bicycle DUI case, the state was not allowed to argue the issue surrounding the defendant's refusal of the breathalyzer test. The implied consent law applies to motor vehicles not bicycles. As a result and because there are many reasons why a person might refuse a breathalyzer test unrelated to consciousness of guilt, the state could not argue the defendant refused the breathalyzer test because he was drunk and knew he would fail.

This time of year, around the July 4th holiday, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, Florida Highway Patrol and other local law enforcement agencies are out in force looking to stop people for traffic violations and make DUI arrests. The local Jacksonville area police focus on DUI arrests during the July 4th holiday perhaps more than any other time of the year.

Keep in mind that a police officer's DUI investigation is likely the most subjective process leading to an arrest of any crime. That becomes more of a problem for potential DUI suspects during a time when the police are making a conscious effort to make more arrests. When a police officer has a preconceived belief that a person may be impaired from drugs or alcohol, this could certainly sway his/her opinion as to whether a DUI arrest should be made after conducting the very subjective field sobriety exercises and interpreting the police officer's very subjective observations about a person's condition and demeanor. While most people think a police officer's DUI investigation should be recorded on video in this day and age, a lot of DUI investigations are not recorded by the police. Police officers who do not have video cameras in their vehicles can always call for another police officer who does have a video camera to record the DUI investigation, but they often do not do that. As a result, whether a person is convicted of DUI or found not guilty may depend on the defendant's word versus the police officer's word.

Because the police officer's DUI investigation is so subjective, it is very important for a person to know his/her rights when he/she is pulled over by police and suspected of DUI. First, the driver does not have to answer any questions as to where he/she has been or what he/she has been doing prior to the stop. The driver does not have to take the subjective field sobriety tests that can be difficult for anyone to pass under those circumstances. Basically, when a police officer pulls a person over and initiates a DUI investigation, the driver does not have to answer any questions or perform any field sobriety tests that could incriminate that driver. It is always safe to politely ask to speak to a lawyer.

If you have any questions about the DUI laws in Florida or have been pulled over by a police officer who initiates a DUI investigation, make sure you know your rights. Feel free to contact us any time for a free consultation about the DUI laws in Florida.

In Florida, the sequence of a DUI arrest usually goes as follows: a police officer observes a person commit a traffic violation, the police officer stops the driver, the police officer allegedly observes signs that the driver is impaired by alcohol or drugs, the police officer starts a DUI investigation including a field sobriety test if the driver agrees to take it and then a DUI arrest. However, none of the steps following the stop are valid to establish a DUI conviction if the initial stop is illegal.

In a recent DUI case near Jacksonville, Florida, the defendant was driving a vehicle with two seats- one for the driver and one for a passenger- but he had two people in the passenger seat. The police officer saw this and also allegedly saw the driver drive over the double yellow line although no vehicles in the opposite lane were around and at risk. Based on those two reasons, the police officer stopped the driver and ultimately conducted a DUI investigation.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence of the DUI obtained after the initial stop arguing that the stop was invalid. The court agreed that the police officer could not legally stop the defendant because he had too many people in his car. Having too many people in your car, by itself, is not a legal basis to initiate a traffic stop. The police officer would have to testify that the extra person(s) obstructed the driver's view or otherwise interfered with the driver. There was no such testimony in this case. However, crossing the double lines, even if no other cars are around and no one was endangered, is a traffic violation and was a sufficient basis to initiate the traffic stop. When a police officer gives multiple reasons for a traffic stop and at least one of them is valid, the evidence will not be suppressed based on the initial traffic stop.

In Florida, implied consent means that when a person accepts the privilege of driving on the roads in Florida by obtaining a driver's license, that person consents to take a breathalyzer test if a police officer has probable cause to arrest the person for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). After a DUI arrest, the police officer will still ask the DUI suspect if he/she will submit to a breathalyzer test, and the DUI suspect can still refuse. However, because of the implied consent law, a refusal could mean enhanced penalties, such as a longer driver's license suspension.

While driving in Florida does, at least in theory, subject a person to a breathalyzer test, it does not give the police the right to automatically request a blood alcohol test. In order for a police officer to get a blood alcohol test in a regular DUI case, the suspect must consent or the police officer must get a court order for the blood. In a recent DUI case south of Jacksonville, the paramedics were called after someone saw the defendant passed out in his vehicle. The defendant told the paramedic that he was a diabetic, and the paramedic took the defendant's blood to test his blood sugar level. A police officer arrived and suspected that the defendant was drunk. The paramedic gave the defendant's blood sample to the police officer who had it tested for alcohol content.

The defendant was arrested for DUI. His criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the blood alcohol test. The court ultimately threw out the evidence of the blood alcohol test because the police officer did not have the defendant's consent or a court order to get the blood sample, whether it came from the defendant or the paramedic. As a result, the blood sample, and the subsequent blood alcohol test, was illegally obtained and could not be used against the defendant in a DUI case.