Factual and Procedural History

It is alleged that the defendant was arrested following a crash involving a vehicle registered to him that collided with a business located in a shopping plaza. The defendant had driven the vehicle to a bar within the plaza earlier that same evening. After the incident, law enforcement responded to a 911 call placed by the bar manager, who had been alerted to the crash by his security guard.

It is reported that when officers arrived, the defendant’s vehicle had already been moved from the crash site, and the defendant was observed standing nearby with two other individuals. None of the officers witnessed the crash or directly observed the defendant operating the vehicle. However, officers testified that the bar manager identified the defendant as the vehicle’s owner and stated that his security guard had seen the crash.

It is further reported that the security guard informed officers that he had heard the crash, observed the defendant try and fail to drive the vehicle away, and then saw the defendant exit the driver’s side. The guard also observed the other two individuals exit from the front passenger and rear seats, respectively. Officers confirmed the vehicle was registered to the defendant and that he had the keys in his pocket. During their interaction, the defendant exhibited signs of impairment and admitted to drinking at the bar. A field sobriety test was administered, after which the defendant was arrested for DUI.

Allegedly, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence of his arrest, arguing that officers lacked probable cause because their conclusions relied on hearsay from unidentified witnesses. The county court agreed and granted the motion, finding the arrest unlawful. The State appealed.

Evidence Sufficient to Support a DUI Arrest

On appeal, the court applied the established standard that probable cause to arrest exists when the totality of the circumstances would lead a reasonable officer to believe a crime has been committed. The court noted that in DUI cases, this analysis does not require direct observation of driving but may be informed by reliable witness statements, admissions, and circumstantial evidence.

The court rejected the notion that the officers relied exclusively on hearsay. Instead, it concluded that the security guard and bar manager were not anonymous tipsters but “citizen informants,” individuals who provided face-to-face accounts based on personal observation. The court emphasized that such informants are presumed reliable, even if their names are not formally recorded at the time of the encounter. The security guard’s description of the defendant’s behavior and physical location in the vehicle was critical to the officers’ assessment.

Additionally, the court clarified that the accident report privilege under section 316.066(4), Florida Statutes, did not apply. That statute protects statements made by a person involved in a crash for the purpose of completing a crash report, and such statements are generally inadmissible. However, the defendant did not raise this issue in his motion to suppress, and neither the bar manager nor the security guard were parties to the crash. Their statements, therefore, fell outside the scope of the privilege.

Moreover, the court found that any information gathered during the crash investigation was shared in real time among the officers, allowing the arresting officer to rely on it under the “fellow officer rule.” This doctrine permits officers working together to aggregate their observations when forming probable cause.

The court also emphasized that the defendant’s own conduct bolstered the officers’ conclusion. He had the keys to the crashed vehicle, admitted to driving earlier that evening, and showed signs of impairment during field sobriety exercises. When considered collectively, these facts gave rise to a lawful arrest.

Ultimately, the court reversed the trial court’s suppression order and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that the arrest met constitutional requirements and was supported by sufficient, reliable evidence.

Consult a Skilled Tampa DUI Defense Attorney Today

If you are facing DUI charges in Florida, the consequences can be significant, which is why you need a defense attorney who understands how to challenge every facet of the State’s case. At Hanlon Law, our experienced Tampa DUI defense attorneys are committed to protecting your rights at every stage of the process. Call our office at 813-435-6200 or fill out our online form to schedule a consultation.

The post Florida Court Discusses Evidence in DUI Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged and convicted of multiple offenses, including DUI manslaughter and vehicular homicide, stemming from a single-car accident that resulted in a fatality. Allegedly, the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol when he lost control of the vehicle, causing a crash that killed his passenger. The State charged the defendant with DUI manslaughter under Florida Statutes § 316.193 and vehicular homicide under § 782.071, among other offenses.

Reportedly, the defendant pled guilty to these charges and received concurrent sentences for the convictions. However, following sentencing, he filed a motion to withdraw his plea, arguing that his trial counsel failed to inform him of a double jeopardy violation arising from convictions for both offenses related to the same death. He also challenged fines, costs, and probation conditions imposed during sentencing, asserting errors in their statutory basis and applicability.

It is alleged that the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, holding that DUI manslaughter and vehicular homicide are distinct offenses with unique statutory elements. The court relied on Florida Statutes § 775.021, which codifies the Blockburger test, allowing for separate convictions and sentences when each offense requires proof of an element the other does not. The defendant subsequently appealed the ruling and other aspects of his sentencing.

Double Jeopardy Violations

On appeal, the court addressed several issues, including the alleged double jeopardy violation, the statutory basis for fines and costs, and discrepancies in probation conditions. The court affirmed the trial court’s ruling on double jeopardy, noting that DUI manslaughter requires proof of impairment while vehicular homicide requires proof of reckless operation of a vehicle, making them distinct under the Blockburger test. The court emphasized that Florida law no longer applies the single homicide rule, which previously barred multiple convictions for offenses arising from a single death.

The court also addressed the defendant’s challenges to sentencing errors. It found that the $1,000 fine imposed was incorrectly cited under the general fines statute rather than the DUI-specific statute, § 316.193. Additionally, certain court costs, including a $100 surcharge for the Clerks Revenue Fund and $135 in additional DUI-related fees, were improperly calculated or cited. The court remanded the case for correction of these errors, instructing the trial court to ensure the fines and costs align with statutory requirements.

Finally, the court reviewed special probation conditions that required the defendant to pay for drug testing and alcohol treatment. It ruled that these conditions must be stricken because they were not orally pronounced at sentencing, violating procedural due process. The court remanded the case so that the trial court could amend the probation order accordingly.

Confer with an Experienced Tampa Defense Attorney

If you are charged with a DUI offense or any other crime, the experienced Tampa criminal defense attorneys at Hanlon Law can help. Our team is committed to protecting your rights and navigating the legal system to achieve the best possible outcome for your case. Contact us today at 813-435-6200 or via our online form to schedule a consultation and discuss your legal options.

The post Florida Court Assesses Double Jeopardy Violations appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that a police officer responded to a report of a traffic crash and found the defendant’s overturned pickup truck in a ditch. The defendant, standing nearby, exhibited signs of alcohol impairment. Despite no evidence of the truck colliding with another vehicle or structure, the officer initiated a DUI investigation. The defendant’s truck, which was damaged with a broken headlight, was towed, during which it was revealed it contained numerous alcohol containers. The officer subsequently arrested the defendant for DUI. Chemical testing revealed his BAC to be over .15.

Allegedly, the defendant moved to suppress the results of his chemical testing and any evidence obtained during the investigation, arguing that his overturned truck did not constitute a crash and, therefore, his arrest was invalid. The court granted his motion, and the state appealed.

Grounds for Conducting a DUI Investigation

On appeal, the court evaluated whether the defendant’s overturned truck qualified as being “involved in the crash,” justifying a warrantless arrest for DUI. In doing so, the court noted that the trial court based its suppression order on the determination that the truck being in a ditch did not constitute a crash.

The court conducted a de novo review, emphasizing the statutory language’s plain and ordinary meaning. Relying on precedent, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that a crash necessitates damage to another’s property. Instead, the court affirmed that a crash occurs when a vehicle collides with an object, causing damage to itself.

In this case, the damaged headlight demonstrated a collision between the defendant’s truck and the ditch, meeting the definition of a crash. Consequently, the court reversed the suppression order, holding that the defendant’s arrest was lawful, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Talk to a Dedicated Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

DUI convictions can result in the loss of a license, fines, and, in some instances, jail time, but merely because a person has been charged with a DUI crime does not mean that they will be found guilty. If you are accused of driving under the influence, it is smart to talk to an attorney about your possible defenses. The dedicated Tampa DUI defense lawyers of Hanlon can assess the circumstances surrounding your arrest and advise you of your options for protecting your rights and reputation. You can contact Hanlon Law by using the form online or by calling us at 813-228-7095 to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Examines Grounds for Conducting a DUI Investigation appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Facts of the Case and Procedural Setting

It is alleged that an officer, equipped with over 17 years of experience as a DUI enforcement officer, observed the defendant’s vehicle driving 83 miles per hour in a zone with a speed limit of 35 miles per hour. The officer initiated a traffic stop after the defendant abruptly came to a halt in a turn lane rather than gradually slowing down. Upon approaching the vehicle, the officer detected a strong odor of alcohol emanating from it and noticed a half-filled cup of liquid on the floorboard behind the passenger seat. The officer also observed that the defendant had bloodshot and watery eyes and slurred speech.

The post Florida Court Explains Grounds for Suppressing Evidence in Criminal Trials appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that, during a traffic stop, the officers suspected the defendant of DUI and directed him to perform field sobriety exercises. The defendant complied with their request but later moved to suppress the evidence of his performance on the field sobriety exercises, arguing that his consent was lacking and, therefore, the evidence violated the Fourth Amendment.

Allegedly, during the trial court’s hearing on the defendant’s motion, the court found that although there was reasonable suspicion of DUI, the defendant did not voluntarily consent to the field sobriety exercises. Consequently, the court granted the motion to suppress the evidence. The state appealed.

Consent to Submit to Field Sobriety Exercises in Florida DUI Cases

On appeal, the central issue was whether a defendant’s consent is required when there is reasonable suspicion of DUI. The court explained that law enforcement officers can conduct investigative stops based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, as permitted by the Fourth Amendment.

In a similar case, State v. Liefert, the Second District Court held that when there is sufficient cause to believe that a defendant committed a DUI, the defendant’s consent to field sobriety exercises is irrelevant, and the officer can require their participation.

The court further noted that this conclusion is supported by the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Taylor, where it was established that once an officer has reasonable suspicion of DUI, they are entitled to conduct a reasonable inquiry, including requesting the defendant to perform field sobriety exercises, without violating Fourth Amendment rights.

Crucially, the court explained, Taylor, does not suggest that law enforcement officers must obtain consent before directing a driver to undergo field sobriety exercises once reasonable suspicion of DUI exists. Additionally, the court clarified that neither Taylor nor the Fourth Amendment requires officers to inform motorists of their right to refuse field sobriety exercises. Therefore, the argument that the defendant had a right to refuse field sobriety exercises and that consent was required conflicts with the precedent set by Taylor.

In light of Liefert and the analysis in Taylor, the court concluded that when reasonable suspicion of DUI exists, the defendant can be required to perform field sobriety exercises, and consent is immaterial. As a result, the court reversed the suppression order by the trial court.

Speak to a Knowledgeable Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

A conviction for a DUI crime may not only impact your rights, but it can also harm your reputation and career as well. As such, if you are charged with a DUI offense, it is wise to speak to an attorney about your possible defenses. The knowledgeable Tampa lawyers of Hanlon Law understand what it takes to obtain favorable outcomes in DUI cases, and if you hire us, we will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can contact Hanlon Law by using the form online or by calling us at 813-228-7095 to set up a conference.

The post Florida Court Holds Consent to Field Sobriety Exercises is Not Required in DUI Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The Subject Arrest

According to reports, the defendant was involved in a car accident. When officers arrived at the site of the accident, they suspected the defendant of being inebriated and asked her to submit to field sobriety tests. She performed poorly on the tests and claimed to have a knee issue. She admitted to drinking rum and coke earlier in the day when questioned if she had consumed alcohol.

The police allegedly took the defendant to a hospital and demanded that she give a blood sample. On two instances, she declined the request. After determining that a passenger in the other vehicle involved in the crash died as a result of his injuries, the investigating officer ordered an involuntary blood sample, which revealed that the defendant’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.13 percent three hours after the accident. The defendant was charged with DUI manslaughter and filed a motion to suppress the blood test results prior to her trial. She appealed after the court dismissed her request and the jury returned a guilty judgment.

Blood Draws without a Warrant

In Florida, the law plainly specifies that the police must get either consent or a warrant for a blood draw in order to comply with the Fourth Amendment, unless some other exception exists. When the exigencies of the situation make the police’s needs so pressing that conducting a search without a warrant is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, one exception to the rule applies.

The burden of proof is on the State to show that such an exception to the warrant requirement exists. The court in this case refused to accept the State’s argument that urgent circumstances exist in all drunk driving instances, ruling that such reasoning was contrary to established law. The defendant’s conviction was dismissed when the court concluded that the State failed to meet its burden of proof.

Seek Advice from a Seasoned Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

DUI offenders have various rights, and any evidence gathered during the investigation of an accused incident may be excluded from use at trial if the police violate those rights. If you’ve been charged with a DUI, you should speak with an attorney about your options. The seasoned Tampa criminal defense attorneys of Hanlon Law are skilled at helping people charged with crimes fight to protect their interests, and if we represent you, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach us via the form online or at 813-228-7095 to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses the Rights of DUI Defendants appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The Facts of the Case

According to reports, the defendant was traveling on the back of his ATV with his son. They were traveling on a country road with poor visibility and no shoulder. The ATV tipped over into a ditch at 9:00 p.m. The defendant was able to return the ATV to the road, and he and his son climbed on and attempted to start it. Witnesses nearby attempted to warn a truck approaching the ATV to slow down and encourage the defendant and his son to get off of the road.

It is alleged that a truck collided with the ATV, killing the defendant’s child and seriously wounding the defendant, who was flown to the hospital. The defendant admitted to drinking, and a blood test revealed that his blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was. 16. After a trial, he was found guilty of DUI manslaughter. He filed an appeal, claiming that the State had failed to present enough evidence to prove his guilt.

Evidence Needed to Prove DUI Manslaughter

To obtain a conviction for DUI manslaughter in Florida, the State must show that the defendant was driving while legally intoxicated and that the operation of the vehicle caused or contributed to the death of another person. In the case at hand, the court determined that the defendant’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was adequate proof that he was intoxicated at the time of the accident and that he was in actual control of the ATV at the time.

Furthermore, the court found that the State had presented sufficient evidence that the defendant’s operation of the ATV while inebriated contributed to his son’s death. The court clarified that a driver’s actions do not have to be the sole cause of an accident to result in a DUI manslaughter conviction. Instead, the State needs simply demonstrate that it played a role in the victim’s death. The defendant’s conviction was thus upheld by the court.

Consult a Skillful Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

DUI manslaughter allegations often carry severe consequences, so anyone accused of such a crime should contact an experienced DUI defense attorney as soon as possible. The skilled Tampa criminal defense attorneys of Hanlon Law are adept at helping criminal defendants fight to protect their interests, and if you hire us, we will work diligently on your behalf. You can contact us via the form online or at 813-228-7095 to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Explains What Evidence is Needed to Prove DUI Manslaughter appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Implied Consent in Florida: Breathalyzer Tests

As a starting point, all drivers should know that Florida has an implied consent law on its books (Florida Statutes § 316.1939). Any person who operates a motor vehicle in the state has, by law, already consented to submit to a breathalyzer test if they are arrested for drunk driving. If you refuse to submit to the test, you will be subject to an immediate license suspension. 

The post DUI Charges: What Happens If You Refuse a Breath Test in Florida? appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Recently, a Florida appellate court analyzed whether the identity of a DUI defendant is necessary to establish that a DUI has been committed. If you are a Tampa resident and are charged with a DUI or another crime, it is essential to retain a capable Tampa criminal defense attorney to assist you in protecting your rights.

Alleged Facts Regarding the Defendant’s DUI

Allegedly, a police officer observed a black SUV swerving through traffic at a speed that was twenty miles an hour over the posted speed limit. The officer observed the driver of the vehicle when it traveled past him, and noted that she was wearing a pink shirt and had long hair. The officer activated his emergency lights and sirens, and the driver increased her speed. The officer watched the vehicle run a red light and strike a valve box on the side of the road, after which he ended his pursuit.

It is reported that the officer recorded the driver’s license plate number, which he called in to obtain the associated address. He then traveled to the address where he observed the defendant exiting the vehicle via the driver’s side. The officer noted that the hood of the vehicle was hot, and there was damage on the passenger side. The officer approached the defendant, who had signs of intoxication and admitted to drinking vodka earlier in the day. The defendant was arrested and charged with aggravated fleeing, DUI with property damage, DUI, and leaving the scene of a crash. The defendant filed a motion to suppress her confession due to lack of corpus delecti. At a hearing on the issue, the arresting officer failed to identify the defendant in court. The trial court subsequently granted the defendant’s motion to suppress, after which the State appealed.

Motion to Suppress Due to Lack of Corpus Delecti

On appeal, the court stated that in reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress an incriminating statement, it is presumed that the trial court’s findings as to the facts are accurate, but questions of law and fact that determine constitutional issues are independently reviewed. In the context of a DUI conviction, the court stated that corpus delecti is defined as the fact that someone is criminally responsible for a crime that has actually been committed. The court further explained that the identity of the defendant as the guilty party is not necessary for the admission of a confession. In other words, the court explained that while evidence of a crime is necessary before a confession can be admitted, the State is not required to identify the defendant to establish corpus delecti. Based on the foregoing, the court reversed the order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress.

Schedule a Meeting with a Knowledgeable Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

The law affords criminal defendants certain rights, including the right against the State’s introduction of improper evidence. If you live in Tampa and are charged with DUI, it is important to retain a criminal defense attorney skilled in defending individuals facing DUI charges to advocate on your behalf. Attorney William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a Tampa criminal defense attorney with the knowledge and experience needed to help you seek a favorable outcome under the facts of your case. Mr. Hanlon can be contacted at 813-228-7095 or through the online form to set up a consultation.

More Blog Posts:

Florida Court Reverses Sentence Based on Improper Scoring of Prior Crimes, December 26, 2018, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog

The post Florida Court Rules that the Identity of the Defendant is not Necessary to Establish the Commission of a DUI appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

A district court in Florida recently vacated a sentence in a DUI case and remanded the case for resentencing, due to an error made by the trial court in the evidence considered in sentencing the defendant. If you are a Tampa resident charged with a crime, it is important to retain an experienced attorney who can assist you in trying to prevent the state from introducing any prohibited evidence against you.

Charges and Sentencing

Reportedly, the defendant was charged with DUI manslaughter following a fatal crash and entered an open guilty plea. During the defendant’s sentencing, the sentencing scoresheet submitted listed eleven prior offenses, each of which occurred in or before 1999. The total points for the defendant’s prior record, as indicated by the scoresheet, was 9.4. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 132 months’ imprisonment, with a mandatory four year sentence, to be followed by two years of community control and two years of probation. The defendant subsequently appealed. On appeal, the defendant argued that none of the prior offenses on his sentencing scoresheet should have been listed due to the age of the offense.

Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Regarding Prior Convictions

Under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, a conviction for a crime committed over ten years prior to the date of the primary offense cannot be scored as a prior offense if the defendant has not been convicted of any crime for ten years from the date of his or her most recent release from imprisonment, supervision, or other sanction imposed. Further, the rule provides that any ambiguity in the scoring of the prior record must be resolved in favor of the defendant.

Improper Assessment of Prior Record Points

Allegedly, the parties agreed that the defendant did not commit any of the prior crimes within ten years of the date of the primary crime. It was disputed, however, whether the defendant’s probation for one of the crimes ended less than ten years from the date of the primary crime. The defendant was sentenced to two years’ probation beginning in March 1999. His probation should have ended in March 2001, which was more than ten years prior to the primary crime but did not actually end until May 25, 2011, three weeks before the primary crime. The record showed the probation was extended due to the fact that an affidavit of probation violation was filed in February 2000, but no action was taken until 2011 when the probation violation was withdrawn.

The defendant argued that while Florida law allows for tolling of probation based on a filing of a violation, that law did not become effective until after the defendant’s probation expired in March 2001. The state argued, however, that under the laws in effect at the time of the alleged violation, the defendant’s probation could have been tolled due to absconding. As such, the state argued there was a factual dispute as to whether the defendant’s probation was tolled.

The court found that the defendant’s probation automatically terminated in 2001 and that the record did not show anything occurred that would have tolled the probation. The court declined to allow the state to determine whether any evidence may exist to indicate the probation should have been tolled due to absconding, stating that to do so would give the state a second bite at the apple. As the court found that none of the prior convictions should have been listed on the sentencing score sheet, it reversed the defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Retain a Knowledgeable Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

If you live in Tampa and are facing DUI charges, you should retain a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney to help you develop a defense. William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is an experienced Tampa criminal defense attorney who will work diligently to help you preserve your rights. Contact our offices at 813-228-7095 or via the online form to set up a consultation.

More Blog Posts:

Supreme Court Backs Privacy for Cell Phone Users June 18, 2018, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog

Toxicology Questions in Florida DUI Cases June 11, 2018, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog

The Double Jeopardy Defense in Florida DUI Cases  April 3, 2018, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog

The post Florida Court Reverses Sentence Based on Improper Scoring of Prior Crimes appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.