Is an Officer’s Suspicion Enough to Justify a DUI Investigation?

Under Florida law, the legal standard for initiating a DUI investigation is whether or not the officer has “reasonable suspicion”. In other words, an officer must have reasonable suspicion that a driver’s normal faculties are impaired while they are operating their motor vehicle to initiate a DUI investigation. But what constitutes “reasonable suspicion”? This depends entirely on the circumstances.

State v. Tyson and the reasonable suspicion standard

In the case of State v. Tyson, an officer was on patrol around midnight when he observed the defendant speeding and failing to maintain his lane. After initiating a traffic stop, the officer noted the smell of alcohol on the defendant’s breath, and his eyes were red and glassy. The defendant admitted to drinking “one or two beers” about four hours earlier. The officer then initiated a DUI investigation which ultimately led to the defendant being arrested for DUI.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed this case. The trial court had granted the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence that it gathered during the DUI investigation. But the appellate court reversed the decision stating that the arresting officer’s actions satisfied the “reasonable suspicion” standard.

During the appeal, the defendant cited a 2007 Florida case, State v. Hurd, where the Fourth District suppressed evidence and dismissed a drug conviction against a defendant who was charged with cocaine possession. In this case, a deputy initiated a traffic stop after observing the defendant “looking in his mirror and driving kind of slow.” The defendant then changed lanes without signaling, and the deputy initiated a traffic stop. This led to a search of the vehicle, which revealed the presence of cocaine.

The Appellate Court ruled that the two cases were different. In the Hurd case, the police officer lacked probable cause to initiate the traffic stop. In the Tyson case, the defendant was speeding. The officer’s observations during the traffic stop led to the DUI investigation and subsequent charges filed against the defendant.

The bottom line 

The subjective observations of the officer are enough for the officer to initiate a DUI investigation. They then secure better proof using technology such as breathalyzer tests and blood tests. This proof is then used against you during your DUI case.

The issue of probable cause is what we have been exploring in this article. In the second case we mentioned, Hurd v. State, the officer did not have probable cause to pull over the vehicle. Hence, everything that came after that was illegal. Ultimately, the evidence produced by the police officer was thrown out and the defendant got away without a conviction.

Talk to an Orlando DUI Lawyer Today

FL DUI Group represents the interests of those who have been charged with DUI in Florida. Call our Florida DUI defense lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin preparing your case immediately.

Sources:

google.com/scholar_case?case=16618947999625423875

google.com/scholar_case?case=14703384279419511755