Articles Posted in DUI

In DUI cases, once the police arrest a person suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, that person is taken to jail and booked. Only after the arrest and booking is that person taken to a room in the jail and asked to submit to a breathalyzer test. Some people might think the breathalyzer test is part of the DUI investigation such that if a person has a low breathalyzer reading, the police officer will let that person go without an arrest. That is not how it works. The sole purpose of the breathalyzer test is for the state to acquire more evidence to prosecute people for DUI. In other words, if a person has a low breathalyzer reading, that person is still going to jail.

Normally, the police will request the breathalyzer at the jail after arrest. This measures the person’s blood alcohol level. However, if the police officer suspects a person is driving under the influence of drugs, he might request a urine sample instead. Or, if the breathalyzer reading is low, or 0.00, the police officer might assume the issue is drugs rather than alcohol and request a urine sample after the breathalyzer test. The breathalyzer only tests for alcohol, not drugs.

Can the police request a urine sample after, or instead of, a breathalyzer test? And if so, do they need a search warrant? Blood tests generally require a search warrant in a standard DUI case, but urine tests are considered less intrusive. Urine tests do not require physical intrusion into the body. Also, the FDLE, which tests the urine, only test for drugs and do not keep the sample or maintain any information other than the test results. Finally, the courts look at the fact that there is little embarrassment or invasion of privacy involved with a urine test. The suspect goes into the bathroom and urinates into a cup with his/her back to an officer of the same gender. Therefore, the police can request a urine test as part of a valid arrest for DUI in Florida.

In Florida, most people are arrested for DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) after a police officer observes them driving a vehicle while allegedly impaired. While the DUI crime is called “driving” under the influence, a person in Florida does not actually have to be driving to be arrested and convicted of a DUI charge. There are two ways to be guilty of DUI. Driving, of course, is one way. The statue provides for another method. If a person is in actual, physical control of the vehicle while impaired from alcohol or drugs, that person can be arrested and convicted of DUI even if the police officer, or anyone else, never sees that person driving. So, what does actual, physical control of a vehicle mean in Florida? There have been numerous cases that have discussed situations where a DUI suspect was found in or near his car and whether that constituted actual, physical control sufficient for a DUI conviction. Some of the factors include how close the suspect is to the driver’s seat, where the keys are located and whether the vehicle is operable.

In a recent DUI case south of Jacksonville, Florida, the suspect was involved in a minor auto accident, and the police were called. When the police officer arrived, he saw the suspect outside the vehicle leaning against the car on the driver’s side and another person was leaning against the passenger side of the vehicle. The keys were in the ignition.  The officer assumed the suspect on the driver’s side, who was the owner of the vehicle, was the driver of the vehicle and arrested her for DUI after determining that he was impaired from alcohol. At the trial, the criminal defense lawyer moved for a judgment of acquittal because there was no evidence that the defendant was driving the vehicle and insufficient evidence that she was in actual, physical control of the vehicle. The Florida law says the suspect must be in or at the vehicle and have the capability to operate the vehicle. The state must also show the keys were either in the ignition or close enough to the defendant to allow her to start the vehicle and drive away.

In this case, the keys were in the ignition and the suspect was close enough to the vehicle to be in actual, physical control. However, the DUI conviction was reversed because both the defendant and the person leaning against the passenger side were jointly in control of the vehicle, and both of them had the same capability to operate the vehicle. In a case where more than one person has actual, physical control of the vehicle (i.e. joint occupation or control), the state must provide independent proof to establish the defendant was in constructive possession of the vehicle. The fact that she was the owner of the vehicle and on the driver’s side was not sufficient. Without independent proof that the suspect was driving or had control of the vehicle to the exclusion of the other party, the state could not meet its burden of a conviction for DUI.

With some exceptions, police officers are generally only allowed to investigate crimes and make arrests within their jurisdictions. A Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office employee isn’t normally allowed to drive into St. John’s County and pull people over who he suspects of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Additionally, off-duty police officers are not normally allowed to investigate cases or make arrests.

However, in a case south of Jacksonville, Florida, a police officer ended his shift and was driving to his house, which was in a different county. Another vehicle was swerving and almost hit the officer forcing him to leave the roadway. The officer turned around and started following the suspect. The police officer observed him swerving all over the road. The police officer pulled the suspect over to investigate for DUI. He called a local police officer who took over the investigation and did ultimately arrest the suspect for DUI.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of DUI arguing that the initial police officer illegally pulled the defendant over since he was off-duty and out of his jurisdiction. The state argued that the police officer made a lawful citizen’s arrest. In other words, the state treated the case as if the police officer was a private citizen. Citizens are allowed to make arrests in Florida if they witness a person commit a felony crime or the crime of breach of the peace.

In Florida, the police usually attempt to substantial a DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) arrest by asking the suspect to take a breathalyzer test. This is a test normally administered at the jail only after the suspect has been arrested. The purpose of the test is never to determine if the suspect is impaired; it is always to secure more evidence against the suspect. In other words, if a DUI suspect agrees to submit to the breathalyzer test at the jail and blows under the Florida legal limit of 0.08, the police will not let that suspect go. On the other hand, if the suspect blows above 0.08, the state will always attempt to use that evidence against the suspect in court.

The police have other tests to try to create evidence. Sometimes, under certain circumstances, the police can take blood that is later tested for alcohol or drug content. There are specific rules that determine when a blood test is appropriate. The police can also request a urine test in certain situations. In a case just south of Jacksonville, Florida, after the suspect was arrested for DUI, the police officer asked if the suspect would submit to a breath or urine test. The suspect agreed to give the urine sample. The urine sample was given in a fairly private setting and under the supervision of a female police officer.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress the urine test results arguing that the police needed a search warrant to obtain a urine sample for a standard DUI case. The criminal defense attorney argued that giving a urine sample is an unnecessary invasion of a person’s privacy. The court noted that, unlike blood samples, which require a needle and puncture of the skin, giving a urine sample is a fairly non-intrusive process. On the other hand, a urine sample can be tested for a wide range of substances while breath can only be used to test alcohol content. The court agreed that giving a urine sample implicates a person’s right to privacy, however the state’s interest in obtaining evidence, whether that involved alcohol consumption or the use of drugs, outweighed those privacy interests. The court held that the police could request the urine sample without a search warrant since they had probable cause to arrest the suspect for DUI and allowed the state to use the urine test results against the defendant in court.

In Florida, the crime of DUI means that a person cannot operate a motor vehicle while impaired from alcohol or drugs.  It does not mean a person cannot drink and then drive.  Of course, to be safe, it is always best to avoid driving after consuming any alcohol.  However, if a person has a couple of drinks and is not impaired, it is not illegal to drive in Florida.  The crime is not drinking and driving; the crime is drinking while impaired from alcohol or drugs to the extent one’s normal faculties are compromised. The problem, of course, is that police officers are the ones who determine whether a person is guilty of DUI at the outset.  Police officers will often draw conclusions based on a quick initial impression and then view everything that happens next in light of the conclusion they have already made.  This is one reason why every DUI report we have ever read seems to have the same “observations” from the police officer- odor of alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot, watery eyes and similar descriptions. People need to understand that a DUI investigation is completely subjective. If the police officer thinks you are impaired from alcohol, everything he/she does next is designed to acquire subjective evidence to support the decision he/she has already made, which is to arrest you for DUI. And DUI investigations are completely subjective. The judge of field sobriety tests and your appearance and demeanor is a police officer who, in almost every case, has already decided you are impaired, which is why he/she asked you to take the tests to begin with.

Despite that, it remains true that merely drinking and driving is not illegal. You might need to get to a judge or even an appellate court before this fact is recognized, if at all, but police officers and the state are required to prove more than mere drinking and driving. In a recent DUI case south of Jacksonville, Florida, a driver was stopped for a routine traffic violation, and the police officer suspected he was driving while impaired from alcohol. The police officer documented the standard observations- odor of alcohol, slurred speech, watery eyes. The driver also admitted to having one drink. Based on that, the police officer had the driver exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests.

The criminal defense lawyer filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence that was obtained after the driver was ordered to exit her vehicle. Police officers cannot detain a driver and conduct a DUI investigation without evidence of impairment. In this case, there was nothing disturbing about her driving that would indicate impairment. The odor of alcohol only provided proof that the driver had consumed an alcoholic beverage(s), not that she was drunk. The bloodshot eyes and slurred speech are not sufficient to establish impairment, and it is probably relevant that all judges know police officers put that in every DUI report.

In Florida, most DUI cases (driving under the influence of alcohol) are the result of traffic stops and then subjective DUI investigations and then requests for the driver to submit to a breathalyzer test after he/she has been arrested.  The police cannot generally request a blood sample from a person, or force a suspect to give a blood sample, unless the Florida statute authorizes it or there are emergency circumstances. There are DUI cases in Florida where a police officer can get a DUI suspect’s blood to be sent to the crime lab and tested for alcohol content. There is a Florida statute that allows the police to obtain a blood sample from a DUI suspect in certain circumstances.

If a driver has been involved in an accident and there is probable cause to believe the driver was under the influence of alcohol and that driver has caused a serious injury or death, the police can then require the driver to provide a blood sample for testing. There is some ambiguity over what a serious injury is and there is often conflict over whether there is probable cause to believe the driver was under the influence of alcohol.  For instance, just because someone involved in the crash was taken to the hospital does not mean there was a serious injury.  Likewise, just because the police smell alcohol on a driver does not automatically mean there is probable cause to believe the driver is under the influence of alcohol.

But there is also another factor that gets overlooked in some DUI cases. The police must have evidence that the driver whose blood they are seeking caused the crashed that resulted in the serious injury or death. Police often come to these accidents after the fact. Therefore, they cannot necessarily rely on their observations of the crash to determine the cause. They must perform some level investigation to make some credible determination of causation of the crash and the resulting injury or death. Without that, the police cannot order a DUI suspect to give blood. This does not mean a driver cannot be charged with DUI. It just means the police cannot obtain the driver’s blood, and if the police do so without establishing any causation, the criminal defense lawyer can get the evidence of the blood alcohol test thrown out of court.

A recent case involving a DUI arrest near Jacksonville, Florida raised the issue of what constitutes a “crash” under the Florida DUI laws.  More specifically, does a crash require some sort of property damage or injury or is a collision simply enough regardless of whether any vehicle is damaged or a person is injured?  Why is this important?  It could make all of the difference in a DUI case.

In Florida, a police officer is not generally allowed to arrest a person for a misdemeanor crime without a warrant unless he/she or another police officer observes the crime being committed. There are exceptions to this rule in various areas of criminal laws. In DUI cases, the exception is that police officers can arrest a person suspected of DUI without observing the crime if the police officer discovers evidence to support the DUI arrest after a traffic crash. So, if a police officer learns that a person is driving erratically and may be drunk from a lay witness and only finds the suspect after he is outside of his car, never having seen him driving or in the car, the officer would not be able to make the DUI arrest because the criminal conduct did not occur in the police officer’s presence.

On the other hand, if a person is driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and gets into a traffic crash, the police are called and the police officer arrives after the suspect exits the vehicle, the police officer can still make a DUI arrest if the officer obtains evidence that the suspect was driving the vehicle and was impaired.