In a DUI case, the State will often rely on a defendant’s BAC to establish guilt. The prosecution must support any assertions of a BAC with competent evidence; otherwise, statements regarding the defendant’s BAC level may be deemed inadmissible. As discussed in a recent Florida ruling, though, even if such statements are admitted, it may not be sufficient to demonstrate a mistrial. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is in your best interest to speak with a Sarasota DUI crime defense lawyer regarding what evidence the State may try to use against you.

Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that this case arose out of a collision that resulted in multiple injuries and one fatality. The defendant, driving a pickup truck, attempted to pass a rental van carrying fifteen family members returning from a spring training baseball game. The collision caused the van to veer off the road, flip, and roll over, ejecting several passengers. Witnesses reported the defendant’s erratic driving before the crash, noting that he appeared to be focused on a phone. A traffic homicide investigation revealed that the defendant’s truck had been traveling at an average speed of 86 miles per hour.

Allegedly, two bottles of rum, one partially empty, were found in the truck, and the defendant admitted to driving. The defendant was charged with multiple DUI crimes. The State provided substantial evidence of the injuries sustained by the fourteen surviving van occupants. During the trial, the prosecution initially claimed that the defendant’s BAC was 0.17 at the time of the crash, but the expert witness refused to conduct a retrograde extrapolation to confirm this figure. The defendant was ultimately convicted of DUI manslaughter and multiple counts of DUI-related injuries and property damage. He was sentenced to 396.6 months in prison, followed by one year of probation. The defendant moved for a mistrial, but his motion was denied. He then appealed.

The post Florida Court Discusses BAC Evidence in DUI Cases appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

In order to convict someone of a DUI, the State generally must prove the person was driving while intoxicated, which it usually does through the introduction of evidence of the individual’s blood alcohol concentration. Thus, if the police improperly obtained a blood test and the results of the test are deemed inadmissible, the State may be unable to prove culpability. Recently, a Florida court discussed when the results of chemical testing should be suppressed in a case in which the defendant was charged with DUI manslaughter. If you are charged with a DUI crime, you could face significant penalties, and it is smart to meet with a trusted Sarasota DUI defense attorney to discuss your rights.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was involved in a collision that resulted in the death of another person. The police officer investigating the accident believed that the defendant was intoxicated and asked him if he would submit to a blood test. The defendant declined, after which the officer obtained a search warrant that allowed him to obtain two blood samples an hour apart. After securing the warrant, the officer obtained two vials of blood from the defendant via a single draw and did not collect a second sample. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of the test, arguing the police failed to comply with the warrant. The trial court granted the motion, and the State appealed.

Grounds for Suppressing Evidence Obtained Via a Search Warrant

The trial court relied on established Florida law stating that the purpose of requiring specificity in the description in a warrant of the things to be seized is to prevent general searches. The duty of an officer to explicitly describe the objects that will be taken under the warrant bars general searches and avoids an officer from confiscating one thing when another thing is described in the warrant. In other words, the requirement that a warrant must be particular limits the discretion of the officer that is conducting a search pursuant to the warrant by preventing an exploratory search under a general warrant.

The post Florida Court Discusses Specificity of Search Warrants appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

Florida’s DUI Checkpoint Rules

Florida is one of several states where it is lawful for the police to set up DUI checkpoints. The police must abide by certain rules and regulations when setting up and conducting checkpoints, though. First, checkpoints cannot be conducted in secret. In other words, the police must notify the public of checkpoints. Specifically, they must publish the location and the date of the checkpoint prior to when it is set up. The checkpoint must also be conducted in compliance with certain guidelines, which means, in part, that officers cannot randomly or discriminately stop certain vehicles but must have clear procedures regarding who will be stopped.

Additionally, police officers are limited by a three-minute rule. In other words, they cannot detain a driver for more than three minutes in most circumstances. If a stop exceeds three minutes, the checkpoint should be suspended, and the police should only stop select vehicles until the traffic is stopped for less than three minutes.

During a traffic stop, an officer will typically observe a person’s demeanor and speech. The police will also assess whether motorists have an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, or other factors that indicate potential intoxication. If an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the driver is impaired, he or she may ask the person to submit to field sobriety testing or a breath test. Drivers who refuse to provide a breath sample may face additional penalties. Notably, however, a person cannot be compelled to submit to a blood test absent a warrant.

Speak to an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney in Florida

There are numerous rules the police must follow when conducting a DUI checkpoint, and if they fail to do so, arrests arising out of the stop may be unlawful. If you are charged with a DUI offense following a stop at a checkpoint, it is smart to speak to an attorney about your rights. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is an experienced Sarasota DUI defense attorney with the knowledge and resources needed to help criminal defendants seek favorable outcomes, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Hanlon via the form online or at 941-462-1789 to set up a meeting.

The post Are DUI Checkpoints Legal in Florida? appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.

A Florida appellate court recently held, however, that in cases where the police fail to advise a driver of the consequences of refusing to submit to chemical testing, evidence of the driver’s refusal to submit to testing cannot be introduced at a trial for a DUI charge. If you live in Sarasota and are currently charged with DUI or other crimes, you consult a trusted Sarasota crime defense attorney to develop a strategy for your defense.

Facts Surrounding the Defendant’s Arrest

Allegedly, the defendant, who was driving an SUV, rear-ended a person driving a scooter. The defendant did not stop after he struck the person but continued driving. He then struck a stop sign and briefly exited his vehicle before resuming driving. He was pulled over shortly after the incident. He was transported to a police station where he refused to submit to either field sobriety tests or chemical testing. The defendant was charged with leaving the scene of an accident with death, DUI causing damage to property or injury, and DUI causing death. Prior to the trial, he filed a motion to preclude the State from introducing evidence of his refusal to submit to any kind of testing, on the grounds that the arresting officer did not read him Florida’s implied consent law or advise him of the adverse consequences he might face for refusing to submit to testing. The court denied his motion. The defendant was subsequently convicted of all charges, after which he appealed.

Admissibility of Refusal to Submit to Testing

On appeal, the court found that the trial court improperly denied the defendant’s motion to preclude evidence of his refusal to submit to testing. The court noted that Florida has an implied consent statute that requires drivers to submit to chemical testing. The statute states, in part, that a refusal to submit to such testing can be introduced into evidence at a criminal trial. In the subject case, however, the arresting officers failed to comply with the provision of the statute that required them to advise the defendant of the consequences of refusing to submit to chemical testing.

The court held that in cases where the defendant is not informed that testing is mandatory and that there are adverse consequences for failing to undergo testing, refusal to submit to testing is insufficient to establish consciousness of guilt. As such the court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to preclude evidence he refused to submit to chemical testing. Under a similar analysis, the court found that evidence of the defendant’s refusal to undergo field sobriety testing was erroneously admitted into evidence as well. As the court found that neither error was harmless, it reversed and remanded for a new trial on the DUI charges.

Consult an Experienced Sarasota Criminal Defense Attorney Today

If you are a resident of Sarasota and are charged with DUI or other crimes, you should consult an experienced Sarasota criminal defense attorney to discuss the circumstances surrounding your charges. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a trusted Sarasota criminal defense attorney who will work diligently to preclude any evidence the State should not be able to introduce against you. Mr. Hanlon can be contacted at 727-897-5413 or through the online form to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

The post Court Discusses Admissibility of Refusal to Submit to Chemical Testing in Florida DUI Case appeared first on Sarasota Criminal Attorney Blog.