Judge Excludes Evidence: Officer Lacked Reasonable Suspicion

The Facts of the Case

A police officer witnessed our client allegedly run a red light and then crash through a "Road Closed to Thru Traffic" sign, entering a construction area. The client's truck became lodged on top of a water main.

The first officer on scene began interacting with the driver. Body camera footage shows the officer asking about the incident. The driver admitted to "coming the wrong way" and hitting the construction line before stopping.

The Initial Stop & Detention for Crash Investigation

Initially, the detention of the driver for the purpose of a traffic crash investigation was lawful. The officer had witnessed multiple traffic infractions and a crash.

The Unlawful Extension of Detention for DUI Investigation

This is where the case turned. For an officer to extend a detention beyond its original purpose (the crash investigation) and begin a new investigation (DUI), the officer must have new, independent reasonable suspicion that the driver is impaired.

Key points from the video and cross-examination:

• Before the DUI Investigation Began: The arresting officer (who was not the first officer on scene and who conducted the DUI investigation) testified that the *only* observation he made suggesting impairment *before* ordering the client out of the vehicle for a DUI investigation was **slurred speech**.
• Observations Made *After* Unlawful Detention: Only *after* the client was ordered out of the vehicle (which we argue was an unlawful extension of detention) did the officer note:
  • Odor of alcohol
  • Red, watery, bloodshot eyes
  • Stumbling when exiting the vehicle
• These subsequent observations, including performance on Field Sobriety Exercises and the breath test results, were all obtained *after* the unlawful detention began.

The Legal Standard: Reasonable Suspicion

Reasonable suspicion is more than a mere hunch but less than probable cause. It requires specific, articulable facts that, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion (the extended detention for DUI investigation).

Slurred speech *alone*, especially in the context of a recent, stressful crash, is generally not sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion for DUI impairment. Many factors can cause slurred speech, including stress, fatigue, or medical conditions.

Learn more about Motions to Suppress and Reasonable Suspicion.

Additional Argument: No Authority for Crash Investigation

A crucial point in our Motion to Suppress was that the arresting officer may not have had the authority to conduct a crash investigation *at all* in this specific location. The cross-examination revealed:

• The vehicle was fully enveloped *within* the blocked-off construction zone.
• The officer could not confirm if any other motoring public was present *inside* the construction zone where the vehicle was.
• Florida Statute § 316.640 limits a police officer's authority to enforce traffic laws and conduct crash investigations primarily to places where "the public has the right to travel by motor vehicle" or where a private contractual agreement exists (like in a mall parking lot, which wasn't the case here).

Since the incident occurred in an area arguably not open to public travel, the officer's authority to even *begin* a crash investigation (which then led to the DUI detention) was questionable. The arresting officer also did not interview the initial witness officer to ascertain how the vehicle ended up in the construction zone.

The Exclusionary Rule: "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree"

Because the detention was unlawfully extended without reasonable suspicion (and potentially the initial crash investigation lacked authority), all evidence gathered *after* that point becomes "fruit of the poisonous tree." This means the odor of alcohol, watery eyes, stumbling, field sobriety exercises, and the breath test results should all be suppressed (excluded from evidence).

The Outcome: Motion to Suppress GRANTED, Case DISMISSED

The judge agreed with our arguments. The court order stated: "OFFICER HAD NO AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A CRASH INVESTIGATION AND TO ORDER DEFENDANT TO GET OUT OF THE VEHICLE. FOR ALL REASONS STATED ON RECORD THE MOTION IS GRANTED."

With all critical evidence suppressed, the State had no choice but to file a "Nolle Prosequi," effectively dropping all charges against our client.

Conclusion

This case highlights the critical importance of understanding the limits of police authority and the requirements for reasonable suspicion. A thorough examination of the facts, body camera footage, and applicable statutes allowed us to successfully argue for the suppression of evidence, leading to a complete dismissal of the DUI charges. Every detail matters in a criminal defense case.