Jacksonville DUI Defense Lawyer
DUI charges are some of the most common cases on the docket of criminal courts across this state. Often times an individual facing such a charge will feel that there is no hope or that the case is too difficult to defend. However, nothing could be farther from the truth. In reality, DUI charges are highly technical crimes and require many steps to be completed correctly by the arresting officers. Additionally, proving in court that an individual was driving under the influence to the extent that their "normal faculties" were impaired is more burdensome than one might think. A skilled and experienced criminal defense DUI attorney can help spot those problem areas with the State's case and look for ways to challenge the State's evidence in court.
Typically, when preparing a defense to your DUI charge, we will concentrate on four distinct areas. They are: the initial stop of your vehicle; the DUI investigation by the officer; the breathalyzer test and results; and any statements you may have made. Again, the laws of the State of Florida, the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Operational Guidelines of the local Sheriff's Office all require the arresting officers and State Attorneys to follow precise procedures and rules. When these are not followed, the State's case against you may be deficient.
1. THE INITIAL STOP:
Many times the issue of "drunk driving" is not really the true issue in a DUI case. Many cases are won or lost simply by looking at the officer's reasons for stopping your vehicle. Simply put, if the Officer did not have a valid reason for stopping your car, then there is no valid charge for DUI. If the stop is illegal, all evidence obtained after the stop is suppressed and inadmissible in court.
In order to stop your car, the Officer must rely on one of two standards that have been carved out by Florida case law. They are:
•A. The officer must have a well-founded, articulable suspicion of criminal activity (that a crime is, has, or is about to occur). See Stanton v. State, 576 So.2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Lewis v. State, 337 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976); Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244 (Fla. 1995).
If an officer intends to stop your car under this particular rule, Florida Law makes it clear that the stop cannot be based on a "hunch" or "mere suspicion" of the officer that criminal activity is occurring. There is no bright line test to determine when an officer possesses the requisite level of suspicion, but rather each case must be examined for its own merit. An experienced trial attorney knows how to depose the officers and review their reports to distinguish between the mere hunch of an officer and the level of suspicion required under Florida Law.
•B. The Officer has probable cause to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle has committed a traffic infraction. See Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996); D.A. v. State, 10 So.3d 674 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2009)
This is the most common way that individuals get stopped by an Officer. The rules that govern the roadways and patterns of driving are too numerous to list here, but most commonly people get stopped for speeding, seat belt violations, improper tag, failure to maintain a single lane, turn signal violations, window tint, etc.
If an officer believes, based on his personal observation, that you have committed a traffic infraction, Florida Law gives him every right to stop your vehicle. Although the possibilities are endless, it does not mean that your case is over right then and there. Each traffic violation has its own statute and requirements for conviction. Many times these "reasons" for the stop of your vehicle do not match the circumstances on the roadway and do not correspond with witness testimony. Our attorneys have vast experiences in attacking these "violations" to see if the officer truly did have probable cause to believe an infraction has occurred.
2. DUI INVESTIGATION:
Just because an officer stops your car for a traffic violation, or is responding to a crash, does not always mean that they can continue to detain you for a DUI investigation. The law in Florida requires officers to have an articulable, well founded, suspicion of criminal activity. In other words, after the initial stop, the officer cannot detain you to investigate a DUI unless he has a well-founded suspicion that you are actually driving under the influence. Out attorneys know the law, and know how to break a case down to see if the officer's observations are enough to detain you for a DUI investigation.
Most commonly, officers are looking for a flush face, slurred or mumbled speech, red/bloodshot/water eyes, or an odor of alcohol. Many times, after a careful review of a case, we find that the Officer's observations do not match what other officers saw or observed, or that the Officer was not in a position to actual observe the things he/she is claiming. Many inexperienced attorneys will skip this step of the analysis of your case, and the results could be devastating. Our attorneys know what to look for, and know how to make these arguments in court. If it can be demonstrated to the court that the Officer did not have a well-founded suspicion of criminal activity, then the results and observations may be suppressed and deemed inadmissible at trial.
Accident Report Privilege: Did you know that statements you give to an officer while he/she is investigating an accident may not be used against you in a court of law? This is called the Accident Report Privilege. Many times an officer will respond to a crash and during his investigation of the accident, he will come to believe that a driver may have been intoxicated. If an officer is asking you questions and he/she is still investigating the accident, those statements enjoy the privilege and may not be used against you. If the officer suspects a DUI however, he/she must explicitly make it known to you that they are now stopping the accident investigation and beginning a DUI investigation. Without that explicit warning, any statements obtained can be determined by the court to be inadmissible. Our attorneys are trained to spot these particular issues and have the experience necessary to properly argue them in court.
3. FIELD SOBRIETY EXERCISES:
Many cases are lost due to the inexperience of an attorney and their inability to spot problems with the Field Sobriety Exercises (FSE's). FSE's are a series of tests/exercises that were developed by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) and adopted by Florida Law Enforcement. Developers of these tests claim that they accurately show if a driver's normal faculties are impaired in some way. This point is obviously debatable. The tests are supposed to test normal faculties, meaning, test how people would normally walk, talk, or respond to instructions. The actual tests themselves, however, put individuals through a battery of tests that are completely foreign to the way people normally move and walk.
Many times, individuals have other factors that could affect their performance, and many times these things are construed by the officer as "clues of impairment". The most common factor we see is physical limitation. Many people have physical ailments or old injuries that make it extremely difficult to walk heel to toe or stand on one foot for extended periods of time. And many times, the officers forget to inquire as to whether such injuries exist. These issues can be spotted by our attorneys and incorporated into the defense of your case.
It is also important to remember that these tests are completely subjective in nature. Although there are guidelines on how to administer them, interpreting the results are strictly up to the arresting officer. An officer's decision to arrest an individual after performing FSE's is based on his interpretation of the results. We know how to get this evidence before a jury so they can see the tests for what they are, and reach their own conclusions without taking the officer's word for it.
Because these tests are often the crux of a State's case, Florida Law Enforcement has adopted strict guidelines to ensure that they are administered and reviewed properly. Our attorneys know how to check the officer's procedures in the field to see if the tests were accurately given and interpreted, and we have the trial experience to show the jury, through cross examination of the officer, that the tests are not all that the officer is claiming.
4. BREATHALYZER RESULTS:
Many people assume that if a breath sample is given and the results are over a .08 then there is no hope for their case. This is simply not true. The breath tests machine results can be attacked just as any other part of the State's case. The most common issues we look for are listed below:
•A. A machine is a machine. They breakdown, they fail, they often become un-calibrated, and they are not always properly maintained. Maintenance records can be obtained and reviewed by our attorneys and experts to see if the machine and its results are truly accurate. Florida Law requires that these machines meet certain standards and many times it is discovered that the machines have a history of errors or haven't been properly maintained. These deficiencies can lead to the suppression of the breath test results, or can be explained to the jury so that they can properly weigh the value of such evidence.
Additionally, even if the machine is working properly, many times the results can be skewed by the sample that has been given, or by operator error. A high body temperature, foreign substances in the mouth, an improper breath sample; all these things can lead to higher results and may not accurately reflect the amount of alcohol in your system.
•B. Implied Consent: Often a "refusal" to blow will be used against you in court and argued by the State's Attorney that it shows "consciousness of guilt". A "refusal" is something that needs to be examined closely by a seasoned attorney. Under Florida's implied consent law, an individual gives consent to any sobriety tests simply by accepting his/her driving privileges. Since a "refusal" of the test can lead to a revocation of those privileges, officers must properly, and accurately, inform you of your right to refuse the tests, and the consequences of such a refusal. Failure to properly advise an individual of these things can lead to a suppression of the "refusal" and keep the State from arguing the issue at trial.
•C. The .08 Presumption: Many people do not realize that a .08 is simple a presumption, and not the "end-all" in a DUI case. Under Florida Law, if an individual blows a .08 or higher, then the jury may presume that the individual was illegally intoxicated. The presumption however, is just that: a presumption. By definition, a presumption is something that can be rebutted by proper evidence. Many times an individual could have a .08 or higher blow and still be able to legally drive. Again, people are all different and many react differently to alcohol. Some have higher tolerance levels than others, and may be able to operate a car without their faculties being impaired; even with a .08 breath content.
DUI cases are extremely complex and have many areas that need to be properly
examined before making the decision to enter a plea. Our attorneys have handled thousands of cases and know how to spot these trouble areas. We also have the trial court experience necessary to litigate these issues properly in front of a judge or jury. If you have been charged with a DUI and are looking for ways to defend your case, please contact our office and speak to one of our attorneys. A simple phone call could be the difference in your case.
Contact Our Jacksonville Law Office
The "responsive" part of our pledge to be swift, thorough and responsive in representing you for DWI means 24/7 availability via an answering service. If your DUI defense concerns require emergency, experienced legal representation, contact our Arnold & New attorney immediately.
At your free initial consultation, we can hear about your legal needs, offer input and evaluate your case. We are also available by fax and e-mail.
Read the DUI Statutes
