DUI / BUI - Drunk Driving Category Archives — Jacksonville Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog Published by Jacksonville, Florida Criminal Defense Attorneys

June 11, 2021

DO YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR MIRANDA RIGHTS?

The United States Supreme Court handed down a decision that has been historic in a case entitled the Miranda v. Arizona, in 1966. Essentially, four cases made it to the United States Supreme Court with similar issues. All cases involved interrogation by police in a closed room where the putative Defendant was cut off from the outside world. In three of these cases, the Defendant signed statements that were admitted at trial and one of the cases involved oral statements admitted at trial. Following the Miranda Case, whenever a person is taken into detention, that individual must be advised of their Fifth Amendment right against making any self-incriminating statements. When the police question someone in custody, they must advise:

You have the right to remain silent.
Anything that you say can and will be used against you.

June 3, 2021

What is the Speedy Trial Rule?

by Neil Weinreb

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is what Florida’s Speedy Trial Rules are based upon. The right to a Speedy Trial is a fundamental right. It is designed to eliminate incarceration for long periods of time when one is accused of a crime. The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that persons charged with a crime will be brought to trial within 90 days of arrest where the crime charged is a misdemeanor and within 175 days where the crime charged is a felony. Rule 3.191(b) provides for a Defendant to demand a speedy trial in writing and when this occurs, he or she is entitled to trial within 50 days. Under this rule, such a demand signifies that the Defendant is prepared to proceed to trial within 5 days.

What happens if the state fails to conduct a trial within the statutory time periods?

Where the state fails too bring the accused to trial within the above referenced time periods, the Defendant is discharged (except for exceptions to the tolling of these time periods).

April 26, 2021

When Do Arrest Warrants Expire in Florida?

by Neil Weinreb

Is There a Warrant Issued in My Name?

There are numerous warrants issued for almost every type of crime that occurs in Florida. The warrant system is used to apprehend criminals and those accused of a crime. Despite the belief that warrants expire, they do not. Additionally, warrants can be executed at anytime. Just because you may not be located within the territory of the state that issued a warrant, you are not safe from exposure to arrest. It is common for warrants to be issued for both felonies and misdemeanors in Florida. A warrant will be active until it is served, the individual dies, or the judge recalls the warrant. It is important to resolve a warrant promptly, so one does not have to deal with a multitude of problems unexpectedly. Your arrest could result from the most minor traffic stop for a tailgate light.

The FDLE has a database which usually lists active warrants and may be found online at http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/. You can select “search wanted persons” and you will be taken to a search screen.

March 15, 2021

SPEEDY TRIAL RULE: WHAT IS IT AND HOW IS IT BEING IMPLEMENTED DURING THE PANDEMIC?

by B. Elaine Jones

The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The Constitution does not define what a speedy trial means. There is a Speedy Trial Act governing federal criminal charges and in Florida state trials there is a criminal rule of procedure that addresses speedy trial. The Florida rule provides for Speedy Trial without Demand which requires defendants to be brought to trial within 90 days from the arrest on a misdemeanor, or 175 days from the arrest for a felony. There is also a provision for Speedy Trial Upon Demand this provides that every person charged with a crime by indictment or information shall have the right to demand a trial within 60 days by filing a pleading entitled “Demand for Speedy Trial”. These provisions can be found in Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 3.191.

March 15, 2021

Who Should File a Rule 3.850 Post Conviction Relief Motion?

by Neil Weinreb

When Should You File a Post Conviction Relief Motion in Florida?

A motion for post conviction relief is a motion that is filed after an individual is convicted of a crime where the court is being asked to relieve a person from their conviction. The following grounds may be used as the reason for filing:

The sentence imposed was illegal or violates the Florida or United States Constitution.

October 5, 2018

New Federal Decision Regarding DUI and Second Amendment Gun Rights

by David M. Goldman

In a U.S. District Court decision issued on September 28, 2018 by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner from the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Court ruled that the felon-in-possession ban of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as to Raymond Holloway, Jr. in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) states that “it is unlawful for any person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year…to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”

Raymond Holloway, Jr. was charged with DUI and speeding in December 2002 in violation of Pennsylvania law, but he completed a diversion program and the charges were dismissed. In January 2005, he was again arrested and convicted for DUI at the highest rate of alcohol and it was a misdemeanor in the first degree. He completed his sentence in March 2006. In September 2016, Holloway tried to purchase a firearm and his application was denied following an instant background check. Upon appeal, Pennsylvania State Police stated that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §922(g), the DUI conviction prohibited him from buying a firearm. Holloway filed suit challenging the Code under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

June 8, 2018

Traffic Stops for Window Tinting and How it Affects Your DUI Case

by David M. Goldman

Florida Statute 316.2953 provides the law on window tinting and what is legal in the State of Florida. It states that “a person shall not operate any motor vehicle on any road on which vehicle the side wings and side windows on either side forward of or adjacent to the operator’s seat are composed of, covered by, or treated with any sunscreening material or other product or covering which has the effect of making the window nontransparent or which would alter the window’s color, increase its reflectivity, or reduce its light transmittance.” The statute provides that “a sunscreening material is authorized for such windows if, when applied to and tested on the glass of such windows on the specific motor vehicle, the material has a total solar reflectance of visible light of not more than 25 percent as measured on the nonfilm side and a light transmittance of at least 28 percent in the visible light range.” What happens if a police officer sees your window tint and pulls you over, resulting in DUI arrest?

In State v. Coley, 157 So.3d 542 (Fla. 4^thDCA 2015), Gary Coley was stopped by police for an illegal window tint. He was charged with possession of cocaine and cannabis and he moved to suppress any and all contraband seized, and statements made, arguing that there was not probable cause for the stop. The police officer testified that he had issued many citations for illegal tints of side windows during the hearing. He stated that in his experience, the tint is illegal where the driver of the vehicle cannot be seen. The officer correctly stated that per statutory regulation, a tint measurement of less than 28 % is illegal. The officer indicated that he stopped Coley because he could not see the driver of the vehicle through the tint of its side windows, thereby giving him probable cause to conduct the traffic stop. The defense argued that the traffic stop was illegal due to the officer’s mistake of law because the law does not state that if a driver cannot be seen through it, then the tint is illegal. The trial court granted the motion to suppress.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals held that a traffic stop is permissible under the Fourth Amendment where an officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic infraction occurred. The court provided: “As we have previously recognized, the probable cause standarddoes not demand any showing that such belief be correct or more likely true than false. A ‘practical, nontechnical’ probability … is all that is required…. Finally, the evidence thus collected must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement. State v. Neumann, 567 So.2d 950, 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (citations omitted) (quoting Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983)).”

February 26, 2018

The 411 About Plea Agreements in Florida

by David M. Goldman

The majority of criminal cases in Florida get resolved by plea agreements. In the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 3.171 governs plea agreements. The prosecutor has broad discretion in plea agreements. The prosecutor may engage in discussions with the defendant’s attorney or, if the defendant is unrepresented, with the defendant himself as long as a record is made of the discussions.

The prosecutor may ask the defendant to enter a plea of guilty or no contest (nolo contendere) to a charged crime or to a lesser or related offense in exchange for the prosecutor agreeing to any of the following:

1) abandon other charges;

January 18, 2018

Can Law Enforcement Obtain a Blood Sample Without Your Consent in a DUI Case?

by David M. Goldman

In certain circumstances, the answer may be yes. In Aguilar v. State, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D179a (3^rd DCA 2018), Juan Aguilar appeals a conviction for DUI crimes DUI Manslaughter, DUI with person or property damage, and DUI causing serious bodily injury, along with two counts of DUI, the lesser included offense. These charges arose out of a three car accident that occurred at around 3:00 a.m. one evening. Aguilar lost control of his car and struck one person who died, two who suffered serious bodily injuries, and one who suffered minor injuries. A state trooper observed Aguilar was “somewhat unresponsive, incoherent” and had “blood shot watery eyes,” “slurred speech,” and “had odor of alcohol” coming from his person and car.

The state trooper indicated that because there were “significant indicators” that Aguilar was displaying an “alcohol related impairment,” he came to the trauma center where Aguilar was taken to get a “blood draw.” He indicated that he made no effort to get a warrant to obtain the blood because of “time restraints.” He indicated that he again smelled an odor of alcohol and noticed his face was “flushed” and his eyes were “bloodshot and watery.” The blood sample taken, without consent or a warrant, showed a blood alcohol level of 0.112. Aguilar filed a motion to suppress the blood test results due to a lack of probable cause and lack of warrant. The State introduced evidence that it would have taken at least four hours to obtain a warrant and that “because of the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream, there were time constraints creating exigent circumstances to justify an exception to the warrant requirement.” The trial court denied the motion to suppress.

The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the exigency exception to blood testing in DUI cases several times. It held that an exception to the Fourth Amendment for searches conducted outside the approval of a judge applies when “the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” The U.S. Supreme Court has held that natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream was not a per se exigency, but one factor to consider in the totality of the circumstances test.

December 21, 2017

Can You Refuse a Test Given by Law Enforcement When Stopped for DUI in Florida?

by David M. Goldman

If you are ever stopped for DUI, you may not trust the breath test and want to refuse to take the test or you may even want to ask for a separate blood test or breath test by a lab of your choosing. In Florida, your license can be suspended for refusal to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test. You can ask for a review of your license suspension, but a hearing officer will be looking at certain factors under the statute at the review hearing. Florida courts have determined that a law enforcement officer may select the initial test; and refusal will result in license suspension.

In the case of Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Green, 702 So.2d 584 (2^nd DCA 1997), Mr. Green declined to take a breath test after being stopped for DUI. He was observed to be weaving his vehicle and to have bloodshot eyes, alcohol on his breath, and to be unsteady on his feet. He failed a standard set of roadside sobriety tests. He was arrested and taken to the breath testing unit. The officer provided the “implied consent” warning indicating a refusal to take the breath test would result in a suspension of his driving privileges. Mr. Green refused. He, instead, offered to take a blood test and requested assistance from the arresting officer by bringing him a telephone book or a telephone to contact a laboratory.

Mr. Green argued that he had the right to select the test of his choice and the officer was obligated to assist him in obtaining that test. The Court held that the officer has the right to select the initial test, and it can be “an approved chemical test or physical test.” Only after a driver has complied with the initial law enforcement selected test does an officer have to assist a driver in obtaining a blood test or secondary test.