Narcolepsy and sleeping in car = DUI 1st offense

[zzzseanzzz]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

Hello,
Is this a good defense?
Here is a story of: Sean 26 M, Long story short, I was parked at a bowling alley sleeping for 25 minutes when an officer opened my door and woke me up. Told me to get out and do a field sobriety test. Arrested after test three.
I have Narcolepsy with cataplexy. I also have a left ankle with 10 screws 1 plate and 1 washer, from a shattered ankle surgery. The officer did not take this into consideration nor did he ask me of any physical or mental issues.
I want to impeach the officer in court for inaccurate test results/ pushing the FST to his favor with abnormal FST rules and lying about the results.
(police arrest comments)
I was at the bowling alley conducting a traffic stop when a security guard advised me of a person that appeared to be asleep in a running vehicle. He directed me to a silver audi that was parked in a space in the south side of the parking lot. I approached the car to be running, radio playing loudly, and it appeared the driver was asleep, or passed out. He was slumped to the right, and had nacho debris all over his lap. I woke him up and spoke to him. As he spoke to me, I detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage upon his breath. I saw that his eyes were bloodshot, watery, and glassy. His speech seemed to be somewhat slurred, and I had trouble understanding him. I asked for his license, and he passed by it twice before locating it, and retrieving it. He told me he had consumed two "jack and cokes" earlier in the evening.
I had him exit his car and attempt field sobriety exercises.
He did poorly, not wanting to follow instructions.
Based on my observations, experience, and training, I believed the driver was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to the extent his faculties were impaired.
He was arrested and taken to jail.
Upon arrival I asked if he was going to submit to breath testing, but he said no since he was narcoleptic.
(End of police comments)
SO why am I posting this? I want to impeach the officer for the procedure of events as well as submitting false test results.
In the review of the Field sobriety test. There are some untrue events that were marked.
1. The officer showing me how to walk 9 steps back and forth lost his balance on step 2 into it and had to restart.
I did the same thing. I was marked for restarted evaluation, step off line, and cant keep balance during instructions. / To the cant keep balance during instructions, this is ones measure of their center of gravity or equalibrium. Which in no way shape or form did I show any signs of losing control of my balance.
2. Stand on one foot and count. (while looking at my foot... this is not common practice.) Failed for swaying while balancing, putting my foot down 3 times. I looked the officer in the face when we got to 7 one thousand and he told me to look at my foot, I replied im not drunk. Then he cuffed me.
I never once put my foot down, but might have been off balance. Common practice is having the suspect count, the direction in which their eyesight goes is meaningless and irrelevant.

I will have a copy of the tape Thurs to review.
Narcolepsy - Symptoms include red eyes, glassy watery. Also the neurologist recommends scheduling a nap after eating, as commonly you will feel drowsy or have a sleep attack shortly after eating. How many times have you reached 2x for your alarm clock after waking up, let alone immediatly being asked for your drivers license. "or passed out" Is it a bias assumption to be made before the officer even talked to me by saying sleeping or passed out. Considering when one says passed out it is in some relation of drug or alcohol?


The Field sobriety test is 65% accurate on healthy adults. In a situation where my ankle was only brought back to 70% of mobility, that makes my passing percentage 45%... This was not taken into consideration.

After I review the tapes, im going to court to ask the officer how many times my foot touched the ground in description, along with his method of judgement of balance during instruction. Both strikes needed to fail on the FST. Once I have his statement I will Play the video showing different in my favor.

Is this a good defense? Thank you. Btw I never even went in the bowling alley that night. But was meeting a friend there. A witness who can attest I never stepped foot into the bowling alley.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Zigner]

Dude, you stank of alcohol and admitted to drinking.

 

[Isis1]

Dude, you stank of alcohol and admitted to drinking.

that is exactly what i said outloud to myself when i read that part of two jack and cokes! well, i said "smelled". i don't like the word "stank". sounds weird.

 

[Zigner]

that is exactly what i said outloud to myself when i read that part of two jack and cokes! well, i said "smelled". i don't like the word "stank". sounds weird.

Yeah it sounds strange...but it's just the past-tense of "stink"

 

[Raleigh]

I agree that this story does not pass the "smell" test. Why were you in a running vehicle sleeping? Where did you drink the alcohol? Not the bowling alley? You were drinking and driving then. If you were sober as you claim, why no breathalyzer? What does narcolepsy have to do with a breathalyzer?

This story stinks to me.

 

[dave33]

Almost never do the accused and the officers version of events coincide.

You may have some valid points, but getting a dismissal isn't easy.

If you are seriously considering submitting a motion to suppress for
whatever reason you should be consulting with an attorney. Do not
attempt to win a trial w/out an attorney. You will lose.

You think you will be clever and catch him in a lie. He will lie than you will
show the tape.. and bamb you will show that he lied and you will win.

I guarantee that will not work that way. Police write reports and back up their reports. This is their job. You would have to catch him sleeping to make a fool out of him.

Talk to an attorney. You have no experience in this matter and the officer
may have years. You cannot realistically accomplish your goal on your own.
Heck, even a lawyer may not help. goodluck.

 

[cyjeff]

What was your BAC?

 

[ElvinMelvin]

Is this a good defense?

Seriously?

Nope.

 

[CdwJava]

1. The officer showing me how to walk 9 steps back and forth lost his balance on step 2 into it and had to restart.

Potentially valid line of questioning, but, the officer is also watching out for his safety, wearing 8-15 lbs. of gear in awkward places, and engaged in additional tasks that you would not be.

As part of the FSTs he should have asked you about any medical conditions you might have that could prevent you from successfully completing the test. Did he ask these questions? Did you answer them honestly?

I did the same thing. I was marked for restarted evaluation, step off line, and cant keep balance during instructions. / To the cant keep balance during instructions, this is ones measure of their center of gravity or equalibrium. Which in no way shape or form did I show any signs of losing control of my balance.

There are several clues present in the walk and turn test. Raising your hands, not walking heel to toe, failure to maintain balance from the starting position, and stepping off the "line," are among them.

2. Stand on one foot and count. (while looking at my foot... this is not common practice.)

That's the point. It's a divided attention test.

Failed for swaying while balancing, putting my foot down 3 times. I looked the officer in the face when we got to 7 one thousand and he told me to look at my foot, I replied im not drunk. Then he cuffed me.

If after only two tests, the probable cause was not as strong as it might have been, but it sounds as if he felt he could articulate probable cause that you were impaired.

I never once put my foot down, but might have been off balance. Common practice is having the suspect count, the direction in which their eyesight goes is meaningless and irrelevant.

Apparently the officer thought you did put your foot down. As for looking at your foot, that is a common part of the instructions, though it is not generally considered to be one of the clues to impairment.

I will have a copy of the tape Thurs to review.

If they have a video, that could be very good ... or, very bad for you.

Narcolepsy - Symptoms include red eyes, glassy watery. Also the neurologist recommends scheduling a nap after eating, as commonly you will feel drowsy or have a sleep attack shortly after eating.

Narcolepsy might be a medical defense you can raise, but it would not mean the officer lacked the probable cause necessary to arrest you.

Of course, raising that defense might convince the DMV to reconsider our driving status. Out here people with narcolepsy often need to receive medical clearance such that they are assured not to drop off behind the wheel of a car. If you truly have such uncontrolled sleeping fits, you need to stop driving.

The Field sobriety test is 65% accurate on healthy adults.

Wrong. In one field validation study the one leg stand - when taken alone - was estimated to be 65% accurate. When taken as a three test battery, the validation was 81% to 91% depending on which validation study was used. The problem your officer has is that he failed to use the three tests of the battery, apparently, and that might raise some difficulties ... unless they have a chemical test that shows you were .08 or better.

What WAS your BAC?

DUI defense is not a do-it-yourself affair. You need an attorney.

 

[Fickey]

Minor point of semantics, but technically speaking alcohol has no odor. A good DUI lawyer will get some good hits on any officer that is on record of saying that someone smelled or stank of alcohol without qualifying that statement. But you need more than that for a defense.....

Had an officer who told me one time that my breath smelled "strongly of alcohol" even though i had only had two beers much earlier in the evening, had just had a full meal, and the only thing on my breath was biscuits and gravy. I passed the field sobriety test with flying colors, but he still proceeded to the breathalyzer which barely even registered anything in my system.

The bottom line is that if they have decided that you are DUI they are gonna run you thru all the tests, and if you refuse, you are fighting any uphill battle.

 

[Zigner]

I feel that the OP was a drunk who happens to have narcolepsy. Or, perhaps, one would like to look at it as a narcoleptic who happened to drink before getting behind the wheel. Either way, sleeping or not, he had alcohol and refused the chemical test.

 

[Zigner]

Minor point of semantics, but technically speaking alcohol has no odor.

Not that it matters for out OP. The officer stated that he "...detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage..."

 

[Fickey]

My mistake. I should have been more clear that I was responding to the later posts regarding "stank of alcohol," etc.

 

[CdwJava]

Minor point of semantics, but technically speaking alcohol has no odor. A good DUI lawyer will get some good hits on any officer that is on record of saying that someone smelled or stank of alcohol without qualifying that statement. But you need more than that for a defense.....

Not really. The odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from a person is rather distinctive. The aroma we commonly associate with alcohol is actually the alcohol being purged from the pores of the skin. Then, of course, there is the breath odor.

Pursuing that semantic angle won't get you very far. The only time I have seen it challenged in court was when the officer articulated a specific type of beverage ... the defense then queried him on his expertise in the area of such specific aromas, and unfortunately for the defense attorney the officer had run a bar for a few years prior to police work - the court let the statement in.

In any event, while it may be semantics, it is not a defense that will be raised.

 

[Zigner]

My mistake. I should have been more clear that I was responding to the later posts regarding "stank of alcohol," etc.

Yes, using the vernacular may not be semantically correct, but it will not get it "thrown out of court".

I bet you are one of the "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." crowd, huh?