Reasonable suspicion

[Chiefinspectoe]

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.


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.

Thank you for your concise and candid answer. I wasn't seeking a trial, it's just that a couple of attorneys i called insinuated the officer may have lacked Reasonable Suspicion based on the report they read.
I'm willing to accept responsibility for my actions, it was a mistake and I fully cooperated with the police. It wasn't an intentional act; I did not realize my BAC had climes so high so quickly. I'm not upset with the officer for bringing me to jail, he was professional and ploite. I fully understand him wanting to take me off the road for my own safety and that of others.

That said I feel like I'm a descent human being and I don't want the book thrown at me like a 98 mile an hr fastball.

 

[Chiefinspectoe]

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).

Right, so officers have almost copy and past able reports. OF COURSE they are going to claim slured speech and bloodshot eyes. The defendant has no way to rebut this aside from calling the officer a liar; which unless you have documented cases of misconduct by that particular officer is not going to hold much weight. So because An Officer says your speech was slurred and he smelled alcohol you lose the presumption of innocence and his word becomes virtually irrefutable.

 

[Chiefinspectoe]

Yes, but all of those factors, combined with the smell of alcohol on your breath, can certainly rise to the level of reasonable suspicion.

That was my initial impression, which was why I was looking for an attorney more so to mitigate the charge then to defend it per se.

It's just when more than one attorney tells you the same thing, that this is beatable; you want to research it before you give them a lot of money.
That's why I was looking into it because I personally found it to be unusual, I'm by no means an attorney but I do have an above average knowledge of law and my own impression of the case led me to believe that mitigation of penalty was the best strategy as opposed to suppression; however like I said I'm not an attorney so when attorneys tell you something you want to at least take it into consideration.

 

[Zigner]

You may wish to focus more on controlling your drinking problem and less on claiming that your matter is someone else's fault.

 

[Chiefinspectoe]

You may wish to focus more on controlling your drinking problem and less on claiming that your matter is someone else's fault.

I'm sorry, what did I claim was anyone else's fault?
I'm not saying anyone else is at fault here. What I said was I have gotten conflicting information from attorneys in my state as to the constitutionality of the dui investigation. If you are an attorney then you get guilty people off on technicalities as a profession and you make a lot of money doing it. If you are an attorney you will know that even a guilty defendant has constitutional rights and if those are violated they have ramifications as to the case.

I'm researching and exploring my legal options. Not blaming anyone else.

 

[HighwayMan]

It wasn't an intentional act...

I wouldn't exactly call DUI an accident.

It is certainly an intentional act.

 

[HighwayMan]

The odor of alcohol *IS* sufficient reasonable suspicion...

Carl, I'm sure you know alcohol has no odor...

The police do not stop a car for suspected DUI...

Not true! I have stopped plenty of vehicle for suspected DWI. Sure, sometimes actual traffic infractions are committed and lead to a stop, but very often I see actions which are not traffic infractions which lead me to believe they are impaired.

For instance, here it is not a infraction to weave as long as one stays within a lane. I would certainly consider that reasonable suspicion for a stop.

 

[Chiefinspectoe]

I wouldn't exactly call DUI an accident.

It is certainly an intentional act.

This may be hard for you to believe but it is possible for someone to have a drink and enter the car sober and have the BAC creep up so slowly you don't notice from one second to the next that your impaired.
Of course you're perfect and something like that would never happy to you.
We all hope to again your level of body control and level of sobriety. God bless America.

 

[Chiefinspectoe]

I wouldn't exactly call DUI an accident.

It is certainly an intentional act.

This may be hard for you to believe but it is possible for someone to have a drink and enter the car sober and have the BAC creep up so slowly you don't notice from one second to the next that your impaired.
Of course you're perfect and something like that would never happy to you.
We all hope to attain your level of body control and level of sobriety. God bless America.

 

[not2cleverRed]

This may be hard for you to believe but it is possible for someone to have a drink and enter the car sober and have the BAC creep up so slowly you don't notice from one second to the next that your impaired.
Of course you're perfect and something like that would never happy to you.
We all hope to again your level of body control and level of sobriety. God bless America.

This may be hard for you to believe but it is possible for someone to be offered a drink and say, "No. I'm driving."

 

[CdwJava]

Right, so officers have almost copy and past able reports. OF COURSE they are going to claim slured speech and bloodshot eyes. The defendant has no way to rebut this aside from calling the officer a liar; which unless you have documented cases of misconduct by that particular officer is not going to hold much weight. So because An Officer says your speech was slurred and he smelled alcohol you lose the presumption of innocence and his word becomes virtually irrefutable.

Frankly, these are common objective indications of impairment! One or both tend to exist in persons who are impaired. It may seem cliche, but, the body exhibits certain visible cues when it has consumed an impairing amount of alcohol, and these are among them.

 

[CdwJava]

Thank you for your concise and candid answer. I wasn't seeking a trial, it's just that a couple of attorneys i called insinuated the officer may have lacked Reasonable Suspicion based on the report they read.
I'm willing to accept responsibility for my actions, it was a mistake and I fully cooperated with the police. It wasn't an intentional act; I did not realize my BAC had climes so high so quickly. I'm not upset with the officer for bringing me to jail, he was professional and ploite. I fully understand him wanting to take me off the road for my own safety and that of others.

That said I feel like I'm a descent human being and I don't want the book thrown at me like a 98 mile an hr fastball.

A first offense rarely involves "the book" being thrown at you. Typically, you will be paying out of pocket expenses for fines, classes, and whatever else FL might toss at you as a result of a conviction, but at .17, that's bad! I personally have no tolerance for DUI drivers, but that comes from having to scrape victims off the roads and out of cars, and telling friends that their kids have been killed because of a DUI driver. Fortunately, you did not get into a crash. And while I do not believe you intended to hurt anyone, it is a predictable result to consume a considerable amount of alcohol and then drive. DUI is an entirely preventable crime, and it is something everyone knows about. I sincerely hope that no matter how this turns out, you will no longer drink and drive.

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, I'm sure you know alcohol has no odor...

Okay ... "the odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from his person ..." ... <grumble, grumble ... smart aleck ...>

Not true! I have stopped plenty of vehicle for suspected DWI. Sure, sometimes actual traffic infractions are committed and lead to a stop, but very often I see actions which are not traffic infractions which lead me to believe they are impaired.

Well, as you know, the relevant provided there is an objective violation. You may be thinking, "Ah ha! Possible DUI!" But, the reasonable suspicion to support the stop was not a mystical feeling the driver may be impaired, but some observed driving (or equipment failure) that gave rise to good cause for the detention.

For instance, here it is not a infraction to weave as long as one stays within a lane. I would certainly consider that reasonable suspicion for a stop.

Of course! Same here! But, the weave is the RS that might lead to a DUI, and the stop would be made for the weaving, not for DUI.

 

[CdwJava]

This may be hard for you to believe but it is possible for someone to have a drink and enter the car sober and have the BAC creep up so slowly you don't notice from one second to the next that your impaired.

A BAC of .17 is NOT "a drink"! That is a lot of drinks, or a couple of very powerful mixed drinks (like a pair of Long Island Ice Teas in an hour).

It is why we some of us exercise self control and determine that if we drink, we do not drive. We understand that alcohol impairs and alcohol and driving kills. As for me, I have not had any alcohol in 27 years, 2 months, and 5 days, so it's easier for me than most.

 

[HighwayMan]

This may be hard for you to believe but it is possible for someone to have a drink and enter the car sober and have the BAC creep up so slowly...

"Creep up" to a .17? You're really in denial.

Of course you're perfect and something like that would never happy to you.

No, I'm not perfect but I would never find myself in THAT position. It's called being a responsible adult. You are failing to take responsibility for actions you deliberately and intentionally took by calling it an "accident".