Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog
A DUI case can hinge on what happened before the officer activated the flashing lights. An un-signaled lane change or movement within a lane does not automatically justify a traffic stop; nearby traffic and potential safety risks can make the difference. This was discussed in a recent Florida decision that examined whether a driver’s late-night movements gave an officer a lawful basis to pull him over. If a traffic stop led to your DUI arrest, a Sarasota DUI defense attorney can examine the officer’s observations and determine whether grounds exist to challenge the stop.
Facts and Procedural History
Allegedly, shortly after 3 a.m., an officer saw the defendant change lanes twice without signaling and weave in and out of a lane over a block or two. Other vehicles were on the road. Suspecting impairment and a possible traffic hazard, the officer activated emergency lights and used a horn and siren. The defendant continued driving for several blocks before stopping.
Reportedly, the officer approached the vehicle and smelled a strong odor of alcohol. The officer observed red, watery, bloodshot eyes and had to repeat instructions to turn off the vehicle and step outside. After a roadside assessment, police arrested the defendant for driving under the influence. The State charged the defendant with one DUI count.
It is alleged that before trial, the defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained after the stop. The defense argued that the driving did not create a safety concern or affect traffic, so neither an unsignaled lane change nor minor weaving supplied probable cause. At the suppression hearing, the officer testified about nearby traffic and the perceived risk of a crash. The trial court found probable cause for failing to signal and failing to maintain a lane, and denied suppression. A jury convicted the defendant of DUI, and the defendant appealed.
Grounds for Making a Traffic Stop
On appeal, the court reviewed the evidence from the suppression hearing. After doing so, it rejected the defendant’s comparison to a case involving an unsignaled movement when no other vehicles were nearby. Florida’s signaling statute requires a signal when another vehicle may be affected by the movement. Its lane-control provision likewise focuses on practicable lane use and safety. Here, the officer saw other vehicles on the roadway and described a driving pattern that could affect them. Those facts distinguished an isolated, safe maneuver on an empty road.
The court also found an independent justification for the stop: a well-founded suspicion that the driver was impaired. Florida law permits a brief safety investigation when objective driving behavior suggests that a motorist may be ill, tired, or under the influence, even without proof of a separate traffic infraction. The officer described repeated lane changes without signals, weaving, and a delayed response to emergency equipment. The court treated those observations, not merely the officer’s hunch, as the basis for the stop.
The odor of alcohol, eye condition, and repeated commands occurred after the stop. They supported the officer’s developing investigation, but the legality of the initial seizure depended on what the officer observed before stopping the vehicle. After considering the pre-stop driving and road conditions, the court held the stop lawful. As such, tt affirmed the denial of the suppression motion and the DUI conviction.
Discuss Your DUI Charge with a Sarasota DUI Defense Attorney
The legality of a DUI stop depends on the details visible before an officer activates emergency equipment. If you are accused of a DUI offense, it is smart to talk to an attorney as soon as possible. Hanlon Law’s Sarasota DUI defense attorneys can examine the evidence against you and help you to determine how to protect your interests. Call 941-462-1789 or complete the online contact form to discuss your case confidentially.