Florida DUI Attorney Motion to Suppress Field Sobriety Tests
Donnie Goodwin Law Offices
Attorney for Defendant
Suite 200N-Justice Building
524 South Andrews Ave.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Office: 954-768-9940
Fax: 954-463-5428
Mobile: 954-494-5533
IN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND
FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No.: 0000000MM10A
JOHN P. DOE Judge: Hon. Ernest Justice
Defendant.
________________________/
MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FOR LACK OF REASONABLE SUSPICION
FOR DETENTION OR TO CONDUCT CRIMINAL TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION
COMES NOW the Defendant, John P. Doe, in the above styled case, by and through his undersigned attorney, pursuant to Rule 3.190(h), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and moves this court to suppress certain evidence and in support of his motion would show as follows:
1. The particular evidence to be suppressed is the roadside physical sobriety test and statements by defendant.
2. The detention without reasonable suspicion was unlawful and the subsequent roadside physical sobriety test should be suppressed. In the facts of this case, where there is "a little bit of" odor of alcohol alone, and no other signs of intoxication or impairment, there is no reasonable suspicion for detention or to conduct a criminal traffic investigation including roadside physical sobriety test.
3. During early pre-sunrise hours the Defendant was cut off the road by a speeding car passing him. To avoid a collision the Defendant maneuvered abruptly. During this quick response to the other car the Defendant lost control of his auto which left the road and was damaged. At 6:25AM Deputy Bad Dog, Broward Sheriff's Office arrived to conduct the accident investigation. Deputy Dog noticed "a little bit of an alcoholic beverage" smell and called the Broward Sheriff's Office, D. U. I. Task Force. (See, Deposition of B. Dog, pp. 7,8 May 24, 2001.) During the meeting and interview of Defendant by Deputy Dog the Defendant appeared lucid and clear headed. (Deposition B. Dog at p. 8.) During the entire interview and accident investigation the deputy observed no other signs of intoxication. (Deposition B. Dog at p. 9.) After arriving at the scene the DUI Task Force officer conducted a criminal traffic investigation, primarily roadside physical sobriety tests. The Defendant was arrested and charged with DUI and Failure to Maintain Control.
4. The Florida Court has decided that the standard for detention to conduct a criminal traffic investigation is reasonable suspicion. State v. Taylor, 648 So.2d 701 (Fla. 1995). The officer and, subsequently the court, must rely on facts known to the officer before the detention. Harris v. State, 537 So.2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
5. The reasonable suspicion-based "investigatory detention" is a "narrowly drawn" exception to the probable cause requirement of he Fourth Amendment. In order to meet this standard, the State must point to specific and articulable facts, together with rational inferences drawn from those facts, that reasonably suggest that criminal activity has occurred or is imminent. Terry v. Ohio. Reasonable suspicion justifying a stop may arise from an officer's personal observations or the collective knowledge of several officers. "In order to sustain a stop, the officers are required to have a reasonable suspicion, well-founded, articulable, and based on objective facts that [the] suspect was involved in a criminal activity." Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 51 (1979)(emphasis added). A reasonable suspicion must therefore "have some factual foundation in the circumstances observed by the officer when those circumstances are interpreted in light of the officer's knowledge." Peabody v. State, 556 So.2d 826, 827 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1990)(emphasis added). Nevertheless, the exercise of unbridled discretion by law enforcement officers in effectuating stops and searches is intolerable. Cardwell v. State, 482 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1986).
5. The mere presence of an odor of alcohol alone is legally insufficient to form a basis for reasonable suspicion of impairment while operating a vehicle. State v. Kliphouse, 771 So.2nd 16 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2000). This is true even where there has been an accident involving serious bodily injury. Id.
5. In the uncontested facts presented here, prior to the detention, Deputy Dog had none of the required foundation forming a reasonable suspicion for a stop and detention, or, to conduct a criminal traffic investigation with that attending stop and detention. His call to the DUI Task Force officer exceeded the limits of the fellow officer rule; no criminal traffic investigation is supported by the law of Florida. And all evidence obtained or inferred from that investigation is illegally obtained and should be suppressed.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing the Defendant, John P. Doe, moves the court to grant this motion and suppress evidence of the roadside physical sobriety test and statements made by the Defendant in the above case, and give such other orders as the court shall deem just.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been served on the Office of the State Attorney, Broward County, Florida, via hand delivery on this ____ day of January, 2002
Respectfully submitted,
Goodwin Law Offices
Attorney for Defendant
Suite 200N-Justice Building
524 South Andrews Ave.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Office: 954-768-9940
Fax: 954-463-5428
Mobile: 954-494-5533
By:
Donnie Goodwin, Esq.
Fla. Bar No.: 0171859
