Under Florida law, law enforcement officers must have reasonable suspicion to believe that a driver is violating the law before initiating a traffic stop. This suspicion can be based on driving behavior the officer observed, violations of traffic laws, or information received through a tip from a reliable source. In DUI cases, if the officer’s observations and interpretations of the driver’s behavior fail to meet the standard of clarity and reasonableness required, the DUI prosecution may be fatally compromised.
Challenging the reasonableness of the officer’s suspicion is just one of many effective strategies an experienced Florida DUI defense lawyer uses to protect a DUI client from being convicted.
The DUI defense lawyers at Stechschulte Nell, Attorneys at Law in Tampa, have achieved recognition as exceptionally skilled defense lawyers in DUI cases. Being among the very few Florida criminal defense lawyers who are board-certified in criminal defense law, Stechschulte Nell has concentrated much of their legal practice on the law relating to DUI, breathalyzer refusal, and other alcohol and drug-related crimes. If you are charged with DUI in Hillsborough County or Pinellas County, contact Stechschulte Nell for a full case review and personal consultation.
Challenging the Validity of the Traffic Stop
One of the most potent defense strategies against a DUI charge is to challenge the legality of the initial traffic stop. If your defense lawyer can demonstrate that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make the stop, then any evidence gathered because of the stop, including breathalyzer results and field sobriety test performance, could be deemed inadmissible in court.
If the initial stop is deemed unsupported by reasonable suspicion on the officer’s part, any evidence collected from that unlawful traffic stop may not be used in a prosecution against you for DUI.
There are several approaches to challenging the traffic stop:
Lack of Reasonable Suspicion
An experienced defense attorney can argue that the officer’s observations did not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the stop. For example, if the officer’s basis for suspecting the driver was impaired can be attributed to legal factors not related to being impaired, the court may find the stop to be unlawful. This could happen if the driver’s sudden lane weave was intended to avoid potholes, or the driver was momentarily distracted.
Undermining the officer’s justification for stopping the motorist is a powerful defense strategy.
Inconsistencies in Officer Testimony
Discrepancies between an officer’s report and their testimony, or between the testimony of multiple officers, is also an effective method of raising significant questions about the reliability of the officer’s claim about what led to the traffic stop. A skilled defense attorney can highlight these inconsistencies to question the validity of the stop.
Reliance on Anonymous Tips
If a traffic stop was based on an anonymous tip, the skilled defense lawyer would challenge the tipster’s reliability and specificity.
In the case of Alabama v. White, 496 US 395 (1990), the U.S. Supreme Court held that anonymous tips, without corroboration, may not provide the reasonable suspicion necessary for a stop. While the facts involved in the White case were “a close call,” the Court reasoned that an anonymous tip reasonably supports an investigatory traffic stop only when it is sufficiently detailed and predictive of future events or facts that are not commonly predicted. In the White case, the tip identified a car and its location and predicted the car’s specific destination, alleging that the driver possessed illegal drugs.
The tip was held to be insufficient to support reasonable suspicion of criminal activity until the police verified the accuracy of the car’s description and followed it throughout the route to the predicted destination. Only the confirmation of the tip’s detailed prediction lifted the tip to serve as a reasonable basis for a traffic stop.
If a court finds that the traffic stop was conducted without reasonable suspicion, the defense’s motion to suppress any evidence obtained as a result of the stop should be granted. This includes breathalyzer results, admissions or statements made by the driver, and the officer’s observations during field sobriety tests. Without that evidence, the prosecution will have little chance of proving DUI charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Other Effective DUI Defense Strategies
Experienced DUI defense lawyers are well equipped to employ other effective strategies to protect a client from conviction other than challenging the reasonableness of the officer’s suspicion prompting the traffic stop. If the trial court decides the stop was reasonable, the prosecutor must then show that the decision to arrest the driver was supported by probable cause.
Field Sobriety Test Procedures
The primary means used by police to supply probable cause for a DUI arrest are the standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs). These usually include the walk-and-turn, one-legged-stand, and the horizontal nystagmus test.
Florida drivers are not legally required to consent to a field sobriety test. They may simply decline to perform the tests. Then they need not state a reason for declining and their failure to take the test is not evidence of impairment or grounds for arrest.
The way field sobriety tests are administered can also be contested. For the results of the field sobriety test to be reliable, the officer is supposed to accurately instruct and demonstrate the action the driver is expected to perform. The test must also be conducted according to the “standard” for each test. The test conditions must be appropriate, including the ground conditions, lighting conditions, and weather conditions. Finally, the officer’s interpretation of the driver’s performance is subject to scrutiny by the defense.
Video Evidence
Dashboard and body camera footage often provide objective evidence regarding the driver’s behavior and interaction with the officer. The video frequently reveals that the officer overstated the degree to which the driver’s speech or understanding of instructions was impaired.
Any video that appears to contradict the officer’s written report or in-court testimony is extremely powerful defense evidence.
Calibration and Maintenance of Breathalyzer Devices
DUI defense requires a comprehensive understanding of the technical aspects of the breathalyzer process. Challenging the accuracy of breathalyzer results by questioning the calibration and maintenance of the testing device can be an effective strategy. Only experienced DUI defense lawyers are likely to have extensive knowledge of the design, function, and capacity for error inherent in breathalyzer machines.
Florida law requires that these devices be regularly maintained and calibrated according to specific standards.
Read More > Getting Back on the Road After DUI: Interlock Devices
Your Experienced DUI Defense Attorneys; Stechschulte Nell Law
If you are charged with DUI or Refusal of a Chemical Test in Hillsborough County or Pinellas County, contact Stechschulte Nell, Attorneys at Law for skilled and experienced DUI defense.
