Tampa criminal court case results
- client breathalyzer .162 and .169
- facts: The client was supposedly observed by a Tampa Police Officer speeding north on Dale Mabry and weaving over her lane marker. As the officer approached the client's vehicle he began to record her driving pattern until she was pulled over close to Hillsborough Avenue. After she attempted field sobriety tests she was arrested and taken to the Orient Road Jail. The client blew .162 and .169. The TPD officer's report stated the our client was weaving in and out of her lane, and at one point the officer claimed she almost struck his vehicle.
- defense: We initially felt that prevailing on a motion to suppress in this case would be very difficult based on the driving pattern described by the law enforcement officer. This case is a terrific example of how a law enforcement officer will exaggerate in his report. When we got to court I expected the video of my client's driving pattern to be horrendous. In my opinion the driving pattern in the video was not reflective of the driving pattern described by the officer in the report. As a result,we decided to go forward on the motion to suppress. The video directly contradicted the officer's report. After presenting the video of the client's driving pattern to the judge we argued that the officer's vehicle accelerated so quickly up to the rear of the client's vehicle that she was distracted by the officer which caused her to move over into his lane. At the end of the day the Court agreed that the client's driving pattern was exaggerated in the report. However, during the hearing the officer claimed that our client was also speeding. The officer never became aware of this fact until he saw his video display in court during the motion to suppress. Initially, the Court felt that even though the driving pattern was insufficient reason to pull over our client, her speeding was certainly an adequate basis for the stop. This fact was especially damaging because the officer's speed was indicated on the video display shown to the judge in court. The first motion to suppress hearing was re-set to allow our office to make argument on why the Court should not rely on the speed displayed on the video to justify the officer's stop. After supplying the Court with a memorandum to support our argument the Court agreed that observations made by the officer after the stop could not be used to justify the stop of the client's vehicle. The officer did not mention in his report that the defendant was speeding, and it was very obvious that he never believed that the client may have been speeding until he walked into court to argue our motion to suppress.
- results: the court granted our motion to suppress, and the client's dui charge was dismissed.
- related articles:
-
Cases by Practice Area
