CASE NO. 07-027313MM10A - CASE DISMISSED.

The client was observed traveling north on NW 3rd Avenue in Broward County, Florida with a "broken tail light." A traffic stop was initiated whereby a BSO deputy smelled an odor of alcohol emitting from the vehicle. When asked for her driver's license, our client responded by handing the deputy her bank card. The driver further stated that she was returning home from the hospital which was located as the same address listed as her home address on her driver's license. Upon being asked to perform field sobriety exercises the driver stumbled out of her car. After a brief observation, it was determined that the driver would be unable to attempt any roadside exercises. After being taken to the DUI BAT unit the driver was asked to provide breath samples, the results of which were .280 and .288. Under Florida law this is over three and a half times the legal limit.

Defense Preparation:

Sworn testimony was obtained by the stopping and arresting officer in both deposition and at the Dept. of Motor Vehicles administrative hearing. Under oath, the sworn officer repeatedly stated that the only reason to effectuate the traffic stop of the client was due to the fact that she was driving with a "broken" tail lamp. When pressed to disclose whether broken meant shattered, non-illuminating, or cracked, the officer stated that he could not remember specifically the meaning of "broken" in this specific case. Upon further questioning it was learned that the stopping officer was only behind the driver's car for eight seconds and did not observe any driving pattern that would be indicative of DUI. No further driving infractions were explained by the Broward Sheriff's deputy that would otherwise give him justification in stopping the driver's automobile.

Legal Argument:

Florida Statute, S316.221 regarding automobile tail lamps requires that each automobile traveling on public roadways shall have two operable tail lamps. Consequently, when a vehicle is manufactured to include three tail lamps, the failure of one renders the automobile "in compliance" with applicable law. In the Appellate decision of Doctor v. State, 596 So. 2d. 442, it was determined that the stop of an automobile was not justified on the basis that officers "reasonably suspected" that automobiles with cracked lens covers over one of its rear lights was in violation of the law in that officers are charged with the knowledge of law and a reasonable officer would have known that the automobile was in compliance. Additionally, it was held that police cannot stop a vehicle for malfunctioning equipment if the equipment is not required by statute, poses no safety hazard, or otherwise violates no law.

Motion to Suppress Based on Illegal Stop:

At the hearing on the Motion to Suppress for an illegal stop of the driver's vehicle, it was alleged that all observations and any evidence obtained resulting from the illegal police activity should be suppressed. This included all observations and of course, the Intoxilyzer results that were so damaging. If the stop was found to be illegal, all evidence would have been suppressed, leaving the State with no case. Surprisingly, when questioned by the prosecutor, the stopping officer drastically changed his story and included new facts. Specifically, the officer in trying to overcome our Motion to Suppress alleged that the driving pattern of our client was indicative of someone being under the influence of alcohol. He stated that the driver swerved over lines, sped up and slowed down, and that the malfunctioning tail light was completely shattered and emanating a white light which interfered with a driver's vision who might be traveling behind. Naturally, all of the statements by this law enforcement officer were impeached by his prior testimony stated above. In fact, the level to which this officer contradicted himself was astounding.

Ruling of the Court:

The Honorable Judge Kathy Ireland sitting in Broward County court found the officer's testimony to be completely unreliable due to so many contradictions. Speaking directly to our client, she further stated that due to the extremely high blood alcohol level, she would prefer not to grant a motion to suppress due to the aggravating circumstances surrounding this DUI. Nonetheless, due to the law in effect, she had no choice but to rule in favor of the defense thus stripping the state attorney's office of all evidence required to obtain a conviction. Given that the law is directly on point, it is unlikely that the state attorney's office will attempt to file an appeal. It is anticipated that all charges will be dropped within the next two weeks.

Criminal defense attorneys know full well the power of suppressing State evidence. At the very least it weakens the prosecutor's case and at best leads to an outright dismissal. For questions about this article, please contact criminal defense attorney William Moore. You may also visit the law offices of William Moore in any of our three locations in South Florida. We have offices in Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach counties.