Chiefinspectoe
Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
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
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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??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.
You're probably demonstrating a bit of hyperbole there...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?!?!?
Fair enough - and in the interest of full disclosure, I didn't dig too deep in to this matter.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).
The citation was for "driving in bike lane or sidewalk"What was the initial reason for the stop?
FLORIDA.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.?
You told us your state at the beginning. He just missed it...it happensFLORIDA.
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
Yes, but all of those factors, combined with the smell of alcohol on your breath, can certainly rise to the level of reasonable suspicion.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.