• Criminal Defense Overview
• Drunk Driving Center
• Prosecutor’s Role
• Department of Motor Vehicles
• Resource Center
• Contact Us
• Tampa Defense Attorney
• Sex Crimes

Recent DUI Court Wins

State v. Q.; Judge: Artemus McNeil; Date: September 20, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was observed weaving in and out of traffic before he drove into oncoming traffic and crashed into a ditch. After the police arrived the client stated that he passed out behind the wheel. The client then changed his story stating, "I fell asleep behind the wheel". A blood draw was done, and alcohol was found in his system. During the investigation the defendant admitted he had been taking xanax before the accident.

DEFENSE: The alcohol in the defendant’s system was low, and there was not a quantifiable amount of xanax in his blood.

RESULT: The State dropped the DUI.

State v. M.; Judge: John N. Conrad; Date: September 11, 2007

FACTS: The client was 18 years of age, and attended the University of Tampa when she was pulled over for DUI. The legal limit for anyone below 21 years of age is .02, not .08. She was observed traveling on north on Dale Mabry when the officer noticed she was drifting in and out of the lane markers. The officer pulled her over and noticed blood shot, glassy eyes and a distinct odor of an alcoholic beverage on her breath. The officer asked her to perform field sobriety tests and she did. She became so upset during the field sobriety tests that she was unable to perform. Ultimately, the officer arrested her for DUI, and she was transported to central booking. She agreed to take the breathalyzer and blew .083, and .082. The client’s breath result was high considering her age, and her performance on the field sobriety tests was terrible.

DEFENSE: The defendant was unfamiliar with the area and her driving pattern was consistent with someone who was lost. Her performance on the field sobriety tests was explained by her age and her background. Many times someone’s performance on the field sobriety tests is attributable to nerves. These types of cases can be difficult to defend because most state attorney’s feel that "nerves" play no role on someone’s ability to perform the field sobriety tests.

RESULT:The State dropped the DUI charge.

State v. T; Judge Elizabeth Rice; Date: August 2007

FACTS: Our client was arrested and charged with DUI, after leaving a bar in South Tampa. Our client had been drinking earlier in the night, unfortunately however, her friends were far more intoxicated. Our client thought she was doing the right thing by volunteering to drive a friend home from the bar. Shortly after leaving the bar, the friend got sick in the car, and our client was forced to pull over in the middle of the road. A police officer happened to be driving by and pulled over to investigate the situation. Upon making contact with our client and her friend, the officer immediately became suspicious that our client may be driving under the influence. The officer requested that the client perform field sobriety exercises. Eventually he made the decision that he had probable cause to arrest out client for DUI. She was arrested and taken to jail where she submitted to the breathalyzer test, which estimated her blood alcohol to be approximately .12. The "legal limit" in Florida is 0.08.

DEFENSE: Despite the fact that the description of the driving pattern seemed terrible at first glance, further investigation led to information that explained her driving. We filed a motion to suppress all the evidence that emanated from the stop of the vehicle.

RESULT: The client’s charge was amended to a Reckless Driving.

Back to the top

State v. B; Judge: Margaret Courtney; Date: July 30, 2007

FACTS: The defendant (client) was driving southbound on North Palm Drive in Tampa when a Tampa Police Officer noticed that her headlights were off. The officer activated his emergency equipment and attempted to pull the vehicle over. As she pulled into a parking space the vehicle went up and over a curb. The officer noticed that the client’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy. He also noticed that she had a odor of alcohol emanating from her breath. During questioning the defendant admitted having a few drinks, and said she was the "soberest" one in the car.

The client then agreed to perform a number of field sobriety tests, which she failed. After she was arrested she was transported to Central Breath Testing at the Orient Road Jail. She agreed to submit to a breath test which indicated .152 and .137.

DEFENSE: We filed a Motion to Suppress the stop of the defendant’s vehicle which led to negotiations with the State. The client’s breath result was very high, but that breath result has no bearing or relevance to the issues surrounding the stop of someone’s vehicle for DUI. No matter how ugly you might think the facts of your case are it is crucial that you retain an experienced attorney to represent you. Without an experienced attorney this particular case would of probably had a much different result.

RESULT: The state agreed to drop the DUI charge.

State v. C.; Judge: Tom Barber; Date July 23, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was stopped by Tampa Police for running a stop sign and speeding. When the DUI enforcement officer arrived she noticed “bloodshot, glassy eyes, and slurred speech”. When the officer asked the defendant to exit the vehicle he stumbled, and then grabbed hold of his vehicle to steady himself. Our client was then asked to perform the field sobriety tests (specifically the walk and turn test), which he agreed to do. He was unable to maintain his balance, stepped off the line, and started performing before the instructions were read. Shortly after he performed the walk and turn, the defendant was arrested. When he arrived at Central Breath Testing the client refused the breathalyzer.

DEFENSE: During the discovery process we determined that the prosecution was unable to locate the video of our client’s performance. We then filed a motion to dismiss alleging that our client’s due process rights were violated because the video would dispute the officer’s opinion of how poorly he performed.

RESULT: The State dropped the DUI charge.

State v. A; Judge: Elizabeth Rice; Date: July 10, 2007

FACTS: The defendant was stopped by a Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Deputy after her car remained stopped at a green light at 22 street North and 7th Avenue in Ybor City. The deputy detected slurred speech and red-watery eyes. When the DUI enforcement Deputy arrived he claimed there was an easily detectable odor of alcohol on our client’s breath. After further discussions with the deputy the client admitted to drinking alcohol, and she was arrested for DUI. She was also arrested for Driving While License Suspended.

DEFENSE: We had a number of discussions with the State about filiing a motion to suppress the stop of our client’s vehicle which led to a negotiated agreement.

RESULT: The State reduced the DUI charge to reckless driving and the Driving While License Suspended charge was amended to No Valid Driver’s License.

State v. W; Judge: Lawrence Lefler; Date: June 1, 2007

FACTS: The client was pulled over because his radio was too loud. The officer claimed he could hear the radio 75 feet away. In the state of Florida, if your radio is audible within 25 feet, an officer can stop your vehicle, and give you a citation. Whenever someone is pulled over, they typically become nervous, even if it’s just a speeding ticket. In this case, however, the defendant had a panic disorder, which made him appear extremely nervous on the video. His voice wasn’t slurred and he never swayed while he spoke to the officer, but he also never stopped talking. He continued to tell the officer that he was too nervous to take the test. Once the officer realized the defendant was going to continue to repeat himself, he engaged the defendant in further conversation. The officer knows that someone who appears to be “stalling”, or “making excuses” looks guilty.

Generally, the first officer who makes contact with a possible dui suspect radios for the assistance of a special “dui enforcement officer’. The initial officer takes that step because he obviously believes the suspect is DUI. The moment the dui officer gets out of his cruiser to make contact with you, it is important to realize that the video camera is on and you are both, “on stage”. As he approaches you the dui officer is presuming guilt because of his conversation with the officer who made the initial stop. The goal of the dui officer is to collect as much incriminating evidence (a poor performance on video) as possible. Sometimes what may sound like “friendly talk”, is a method used by officers to document “admissions of guilt” on the video.

DEFENSE: Ultimately, we were able to point out to the state attorney that our client’s performance on the video was the result of his panic disorder, not because he was driving under the influence. This was extremely important to the client because it was his second DUI within the past five years. If he had pled straight up to the DUI, he would have lost his license for five years, and done a minimum of 10 days in the Hillsborough County Jail.

RESULT: The Defendant’s DUI was dropped, and he received no license suspension.

Back to the top

State v. M; Judge: John N. Conrad; Date: May 1, 2007

FACTS: The client was a very respected school teacher in one of our county school systems. She was observed weaving in and out of her own lane, and traveling 60 MPH in a 40 MPH zone. The officer conducted a traffic stop at Kennedy and Howard, and noticed our client had a distinct odor of alcoholic beverage. The officer also noticed that the client had watery, bloodshot eyes. Before performing the Field Sobriety Tests she was asked whether she had anything to drink. According to the officer she initially denied having any alcohol, but then admitted to having one drink post-miranda. The defendant was prepared to perform the walk and turn test when she asked the officer if she could have an attorney. The officer told her that she was not entitled to an attorney at that time. Ultimately, the client refused to perform the Field Sobriety Tests, and was arrested for DUI. After arriving at Central Breath Testing she was asked to submit to a breathalyzer test. The defendant refused that test also.

DEFENSE: The offense occurred on January 21, 2007. The weather that night was particularly windy and cold. The defendant was not wearing the proper clothing and ended up shivering uncontrollably outside her car. While the Field Sobriety Tests appear very simple and straight forward to most people, they can be very difficult to perform in bad weather. For instance, before you begin to perform the walk-and-turn test you are asked to stand heal to to without moving, as the officer reads you the instructions. This is extremely difficult when you are shaking from the cold. Many times an officer will get upset if you decide not to perform the field sobriety tests. The reason for that is simple. You are refusing to give him the evidence he wants to prove your guilt. When our client refused to perform the Field Sobriety Tests without a lawyer, it created friction between the client and the officer. This friction led to the defendant refusing to submit to the breathalyzer also.

This chain of events is not uncommon. People refuse to perform the Field Sobriety Tests, and the breathalyzer for many different reasons. In this case, we were able to persuade the State Attorney that the defendant’s refusal was justified under the circumstances.

RESULT: The client’s DUI was reduced to a reckless driving, and she received a “Withhold of Adjudication” and court costs. (A withhold means that the client was able to avoid a conviction on the reckless driving charge and she received no points on her driving record.)

State v. L; Judge: Lawrence Lefler; Date: March 20, 2007

FACTS: After spending the night in Ybor City, the client drove some friends home. She was pulled over after one of the passenger’s in her car threw garbage out of the back window. Her car was pulled over at about 4 a.m., at the off ramp of I-75 and Bruce B. Downs Boulevard. As the officer spoke to the client he smelled an odor of alcohol on her breath and her eyes appeared to be glassy. The client was also wearing nightclub arm bands on both arms. After she admitted to drinking the officer asked her to perform some field sobriety tests. The officer felt she failed the field sobriety tests and arrested her for DUI. When she arrived at the Orient Road Jail in Hillsborough County she refused to blow into the breathalyzer. The defendant was also an under age drinker.

DEFENSE: The defendant’s performance on the video was much better than the description given by the Tampa Police Officer in his report. Again, a video can create a real doubt as to the defendant’s guilt in a DUI case.

RESULT: The DUI was dropped.

State v. L; Judge: Lawrence Lefler; Date: March 19, 2007

FACTS: The client was driving a motorcycle at a very high rate of speed when he was observed by a deputy from the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office. The defendant was passing erratically and unexpecteddly with no warning. He also caused other drivers to slam their brake as he was correcting and readjusting within his lane. After the defendant was stopped the officer noticed that the defendant’s speech was slow and slightly slurred. He also noticed an odor of alcohol emanating from the defendant’s breath. The client was asked to perform field sobriety tests and failed miserably, according to the police report. He was then arrested for DUI and booked at the hillsborough county jail. The defendant refused to blow into the breathalyzer.

DEFENSE: There was a dispute as to whether the defendant had performed as poorly as described by the deputy. The video of our client can sometimes create enough of an inconsistency in the evidence to bring about a very positive result.

RESULT: The DUI was dropped.

State v. C , Judge: Tom Barber; Date: March 15, 2007

FACTS: The client (defendant) was stopped by a trooper for traveling 97 mph in a 65 mph zone on the Howard Franklin Bridge. As the trooper contacted the defendant he noticed he was disoriented and mumbling, with a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. When the client exited his vehicle he was unsteady and stumbling. The client believed he was heading to St. Pete when he was actually headed towards Tampa. The defendant was asked to perform Field Sobriety Tests, and failed, according to the trooper. There was no video of the defendant’s performance of the field sobriety tests at the scene. Ultimately, the defendant refused to submit to a breath test.

DEFENSE: The video of the defendant at the Orient Road Jail contradicted the trooper’s description of him at the scene. In addition, we were able to supply evidence to the State that the defendant was new to the area, and unfamiliar with the roads. It is also important to point out that the client’s refusal of the breath test did not weaken the state’s case. The State has the ability to argue that the defendant refused, “... because he knew he was intoxicated”. However, in this particular situation we were able to provide the State with a reasonable explanation for the refusal.

RESULT: The State dropped the DUI.

State v. O, Judge: James Dominguez; Date: March 12, 2007

FACTS: The client (defendant) was stopped at the light on highway 41 north and Florida Avenue. A Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office deputy stopped at the light behind our client. According to the deputy the light cycled through twice before she activated her overhead lights and approached the defendant’s vehicle. The deputy claimed that the defendant was incoherent, and unaware of her surroundings when she made contact with her at the driver’s side door. At that point the stopping deputy called a special DUI enforcement deputy who conducted a DUI investigation. The second deputy asked the defendant to perform field sobriety tests, and claimed she had failed the tests. Much of what the deputy reported seemed to be confirmed by the defendant’s breath result (the breath result was .146 and .129 ).

DEFENSE: After a number of attempts to negotiate with the State failed, we filed a motion to suppress the stop of the defendant’s car. The State felt there was a safety concern that warranted the deputy stopping our client to determine the situation. We felt the deputy stopped our client’s vehicle prematurely, and without reasonable suspicion.

RESULT: The State realized there were problems opposing our motion which led to a reduction of the charge to reckless driving for the client.

State v. P, State v. N; Judge: Joelle Ober; Date: February 22, 2007

FACTS: The defendants (clients) both left the Dallas Bull Bar near U.S. 301 and Interstate 4, at around 1:30 a.m. Before leaving the bar each had consumed 1-2 beers. As they left the clients decided to follow each other home. Both clients were unaware that a special DUI enforcement deputy was waiting in a nearby parking lot for patrons to leave. The deputy decided to follow them as they left. Shortly after falling behind the defendants the deputy claimed one was following the other too closely, and stopped his car to cite him for the infraction. After the stop, the deputy claimed he smelled an odor of alcohol and began a DUI investigation of the first client. Because she was concerned about her friend, the second client approached the deputy to find out why they were stopped. After making contact, the deputy claimed he could smell an odor of alcohol on her breath also, and investigated her for DUI.

The deputy claimed that both defendants failed their respective Field Sobriety Tests and arrested them both for DUI. Each client agreed to take the breathalyzer. One defendant blew a .031, and the other blew a .028. The deputy then started grasping at straws. He asked each defendant to drop a urine sample. Both defendants complied, and their urine results ultimately revealed nothing.

DEFENSE: The above scenario is a very common occurrence. The deputy involved in this investigation was a special DUI enforcement officer. These DUI enforcement officers (both at the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office and the Tampa Police Department) camp outside bars and wait for people to drive away late at night. After the suspects leave the bar, many officers will use any excuse, no matter how weak, to stop the vehicle for some traffic infraction or less. This case is a classic example of a dishonest law enforcement officer using any pretext to stop someone, and arrest them for a crime. It is also points out the risk to law enforcement, when they decide everyone leaving a bar at 1:30 a.m is intoxicated. While the officer has a lawful right to park his car outside of any bar and wait for people to leave, he shouldn’t just stop vehicles unless his observations warrant the stop.

Here, the deputy stopped the clients claiming one was following too closely. Did the driver actually commit the infraction, or was the officer using it as a pretext to conduct a DUI investigation? When you look at the facts, and realize the driver blew well below the legal limit, it calls into question the validity of the entire investigation, and the lawfulness of the arrests.

It is important to realize that just because these defendants blew well below the legal limit, that does not mean that their DUI charges were automatically dismissed by the State Attorney’s Office. In the state of Florida a breath result of .08 or above is prima facie evidence that the person driving was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his or her normal faculties were impaired. Florida Statute 316.1934(c). If someone’s breath result is between .05 and .08, there is no presumption of impairment. Florida Statute 316.1934(b). If someone’s breath result is below .05, it is presumed that the person driving was not under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that his or her normal faculties were impaired. Florida Statute 316.1934(a).

In this case, there was a presumption that both drivers were not under the influence of alcohol to the extent their normal faculties were impaired (in short they were not DUI). However, any presumption can be rebutted by evidence. So it does not necessarily follow that you are automatically guilty of DUI if you are above the legal limit, and not guilty of DUI if you are below the legal limit. For instance, in some cases where defendants blow below the legal limit there can be proof that the defendant was driving under the influence of some intoxicant other than alcohol (prescription drugs, marijuana, cocaine...etc.). In addition, every person is affected by alcohol differently. As a consequence, whether you are above or below the legal limit, you should still hire an attorney. This case ultimately resulted in a dismissal of both DUI charges, but it is very unlikely the defendants would have received that result on their own. I have seen many unknowing pro se (self-represented) defendants plead guilty to DUI when they blew below the legal limit. Without an attorney you have no idea of the real strengths and weaknesses of your case.

RESULT: Both DUI charges were dismissed.

Back to the top

Criminal Defense Attorney, William W. Hanlon, located in Tampa, Florida, defends the rights of clients throughout Hillsborough County, De Soto County, Hardee County, Highlands County, Manatee County, Pasco County, Pinellas County, Polk County, and Sarasota County in West Central Florida and the Gulf Coast. This includes Tampa Bay Area, Arcadia, Bartow, Bradenton, Carrabelle, Clearwater, Dade City, Hillsboro, Lakeland, Newport, Orlando, Pinellas Park, Plant City, Sarasota, Sebring, St. Petersburg, Temple Terrace, Venice and Winter Haven.