• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Reasonable suspicion

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.



Chiefinspectoe

Junior Member
Sorry meant to post message

Florida case here. I am getting conflicting information from different attorneys. Some have said odor of alcohol alone doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion for an officer to expand the scope of the stop beyond the issuance of a traffic citation and begin a dui investigation.
I have also heard the opposite that all an officer need do is claim he or she smells alcohol and they basically have carte Blanche authority to remove you from the car and do sobriety tests.

Now I know there are attorneys of less moral and ethical grounding who would love to take $1500 to file a suppression motion knowing it has little chance of being granted then call you up and say "sorry the judge got it wrong, but don't worry well appeal that but in the meantime I'm gonna need like another 2 or $3000"
Then they withdraw and your in the same mess as before, just poorer.

I want to hire an attorney who us going to be there for me when I need them, not one who is looking to make some quick cash by doing as little work as possible; filing motions they don't even expect to work.

So I thought perhaps I could get some opinions as to which side is correct.
Thanks
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Florida case here. I am getting conflicting information from different attorneys. Some have said odor of alcohol alone doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion for an officer to expand the scope of the stop beyond the issuance of a traffic citation and begin a dui investigation.
I have also heard the opposite that all an officer need do is claim he or she smells alcohol and they basically have carte Blanche authority to remove you from the car and do sobriety tests.

Now I know there are attorneys of less moral and ethical grounding who would love to take $1500 to file a suppression motion knowing it has little chance of being granted then call you up and say "sorry the judge got it wrong, but don't worry well appeal that but in the meantime I'm gonna need like another 2 or $3000"
Then they withdraw and your in the same mess as before, just poorer.

I want to hire an attorney who us going to be there for me when I need them, not one who is looking to make some quick cash by doing as little work as possible; filing motions they don't even expect to work.

So I thought perhaps I could get some opinions as to which side is correct.
Thanks

What was the initial reason for the stop?
 

adjusterjack

Senior Member
And what was your reason for ignoring the question about your state?

Did you think it was there just to display a pretty font?

Oh, and what was your B.A.C.?
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Florida case here. I am getting conflicting information from different attorneys. Some have said odor of alcohol alone doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion for an officer to expand the scope of the stop beyond the issuance of a traffic citation and begin a dui investigation.
I have also heard the opposite that all an officer need do is claim he or she smells alcohol and they basically have carte Blanche authority to remove you from the car and do sobriety tests.
The odor of alcohol *IS* sufficient reasonable suspicion to expand the detention to an investigation for DUI. THAT is how we GET DUI investigations. The police do not stop a car for suspected DUI, they stop it for committing some other traffic offense. It is AFTER that stop that the officer can develop the articulable reasonable suspicion necessary to expand the scope of the detention.

I want to hire an attorney who us going to be there for me when I need them, not one who is looking to make some quick cash by doing as little work as possible; filing motions they don't even expect to work.
Understand that most DUI cases are pled out. In the rare case they go to trial it is usually because the attorney discovers some glaring error made by the officer in question, or, the defendant has priors and has nothing to lose by going to the mat. If the attorney cannot defeat the reasonable suspicion for the stop (the initial detention), and cannot counter the probable cause necessary for the arrest, it's usually all done except for a plea deal. If you were stopped for a suspected traffic offense and the officer smelled the odor of alcohol, then it appears that the RS required has been met.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
The odor of alcohol *IS* sufficient reasonable suspicion to expand the detention to an investigation for DUI. THAT is how we GET DUI investigations. The police do not stop a car for suspected DUI, they stop it for committing some other traffic offense. It is AFTER that stop that the officer can develop the articulable reasonable suspicion necessary to expand the scope of the detention.
I've read various sources that say that, in Florida, the smell of alcohol on the breath alone does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion. There wound need to be something else that makes the officer suspect that the driver may be impaired. I'm spitballing here, but if the OP were stopped for a burnt out tail light, then the smell of alcohol on the breath wouldn't rise to the level of reasonable suspicion, while the OP's speeding, drifting in to another lane, blowing a stop sign, etc., in combination with the smell of alcohol may rise to that level.
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
I suspect that the officer could articulate more than "smell of alcohol." He'd justify it with slow movements, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, etc...
The standards are low to extend the stop. The actual arrest takes probable cause which is a bit more involved, but not much.

CDW speaks from being in California. THe rules are different in Florida. Whether you can plea down depends a lot on the circumstance, particularly the BAC. The law prohibits such when the BAC is .15% or more.

You need a lawyer who can look at the entirety of the facts: the initial stop, the suspicion that led to the investigation, the probable cause for the arrest, etc...
THey will also know what plea agreements might fly in the given jurisdiction.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
I've read various sources that say that, in Florida, the smell of alcohol on the breath alone does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion. There wound need to be something else that makes the officer suspect that the driver may be impaired. I'm spitballing here, but if the OP were stopped for a burnt out tail light, then the smell of alcohol on the breath wouldn't rise to the level of reasonable suspicion, while the OP's speeding, drifting in to another lane, blowing a stop sign, etc., in combination with the smell of alcohol may rise to that level.
If that's the case, remind me not to drive or be near a roadway in FL!!!! WTH is THAT about!? An officer stops someone, smells booze, and because the guy was not yet weaving on the road they get to be let on their merry - and deadly - way??

PLEASE say that slurred speech and other indicia of impairment are permissible to establish RS after contact even if driving was not sufficient! If not, what the heck kind of state creates rules that protect impaired drivers?!?!?

EDIT: The cases I looked up that resulted in dismissals tended to involve parked cars, not moving vehicles. Granted, I only reviewed about a half dozen FL cases, but it seems that a moving vehicle and the odor of alcohol may well be sufficient - at least in conjunction with one more observation (which is a no-brainer in impairment cases as one or more of the indicators of bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, etc. are almost always present).
 
Last edited:

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
If that's the case, remind me not to drive or be near a roadway in FL!!!! WTH is THAT about!? An officer stops someone, smells booze, and because the guy was not yet weaving on the road they get to be let on their merry - and deadly - way??

PLEASE say that slurred speech and other indicia of impairment are permissible to establish RS after contact even if driving was not sufficient! If not, what the heck kind of state creates rules that protect impaired drivers?!?!?
You're probably demonstrating a bit of hyperbole there... ;)

To be clear, the smell of alcohol on the breath alone isn't RS (in FL). The other indications you provided probably would be, I imagine.


ETA: To be fair, if I have a swallow of wine (only), drive one block, and then get stopped (another edit) because my brake light is burned out, why should the smell alone (absent any other indicators) be RS?
 
Last edited:

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
EDIT: The cases I looked up that resulted in dismissals tended to involve parked cars, not moving vehicles. Granted, I only reviewed about a half dozen FL cases, but it seems that a moving vehicle and the odor of alcohol may well be sufficient - at least in conjunction with one more observation (which is a no-brainer in impairment cases as one or more of the indicators of bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, etc. are almost always present).
Fair enough - and in the interest of full disclosure, I didn't dig too deep in to this matter.
 

Chiefinspectoe

Junior Member
What was the initial reason for the stop?
The citation was for "driving in bike lane or sidewalk"
There was an issue on the road where I guess a street sweeper had broken down, I didn't know what happening; all I knew is that the road workers directed me to the left and I had nowhere else to go and before I knew it the officer pulled up and activated lights. Told him I was there because that's what I was told to do and I was waiting for the issue to clear up. In his report to establish reasonable suspicion he noted several factors he did not ask me about but they have to do with physical disabilities I have. I'm a spinal cord injury patient so my balance and walking are always awkward.
 

Chiefinspectoe

Junior Member
And what was your reason for ignoring the question about your state?

Did you think it was there just to display a pretty font?

Oh, and what was your B.A.C.?
FLORIDA.
My apologies, I did not mean to ignore the question about the state. Perhaps on my phone this site does not come up in its proper format. However the space indicated for placing State also appears to be the same space for posting the entire message. Or maybe I'm just an idiot, I'm sorry. No intent to ignore anything. Sorry if that's bothered you.
.17
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
FLORIDA.
My apologies, I did not mean to ignore the question about the state. Perhaps on my phone this site does not come up in its proper format. However the space indicated for placing State also appears to be the same space for posting the entire message. Or maybe I'm just an idiot, I'm sorry. No intent to ignore anything. Sorry if that's bothered you.
.17
You told us your state at the beginning. He just missed it...it happens :)
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
The citation was for "driving in bike lane or sidewalk"
There was an issue on the road where I guess a street sweeper had broken down, I didn't know what happening; all I knew is that the road workers directed me to the left and I had nowhere else to go and before I knew it the officer pulled up and activated lights. Told him I was there because that's what I was told to do and I was waiting for the issue to clear up. In his report to establish reasonable suspicion he noted several factors he did not ask me about but they have to do with physical disabilities I have. I'm a spinal cord injury patient so my balance and walking are always awkward.
Yes, but all of those factors, combined with the smell of alcohol on your breath, can certainly rise to the level of reasonable suspicion.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top