NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES FOR REHEARING
AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
STATE OF
Appellant,
Appeal No. CRC 06-85 APANO
UCN522006AP000085XXXXCR
v.
MARC
Appellee.
__________________________/
Opinion filed _________________.
Appeal from a decision of the
County Judge John Carassas
Wesley C. Dicus,
Certified Legal Intern and
Kendall Davidson, Esq.
Assistant State Attorney
J. Kevin Hayslett, Esquire
Attorney for appellee
ORDER AND OPINION
(J. Demers)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the State’s appeal from a decision of the Pinellas County Court granting the defendant’s motion to suppress. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court reverses the order because the officer had probable cause to make an arrest.
Sometime after 10 at night, a couple (the Hollys) were watching television when they heard a sudden loud noise from their front yard. Mrs. Holly went out to see what the noise was, and saw that someone (the defendant) had driven off the road and crashed into the mailbox, flower pots, and garbage bags in her front yard. The driver then backed his Porsche out of the yard and began to leave the scene. Mrs. Holly shouted at the defendant: “Where are you going?” And the defendant put his head out of his car window and said: “I’ll be right back.” When the defendant put his head out his window to respond, Mrs. Holly was able to see him because he was illuminated by a streetlight. The defendant drove away very slowly and without his headlights on.
The defendant returned to the scene a short time later, but was driven by his wife in a different car. Mrs. Holly was certain that the man who returned to the scene was the same person who drove off earlier in the Porsche. When the defendant returned and spoke with Mrs. Holly, she noticed a very strong odor of alcoholic beverages on him. It also appeared that his balance was wobbly. The defendant admitted to Mrs. Holly that he had crashed his Porsche into her mailbox and had earlier left the scene.
When two deputies arrived to investigate, Mrs. Holly told them what she had observed. One of the deputies observed the defendant had slurred speech, red, watery eyes, swayed while standing, leaned against a vehicle for support, and had a strong odor of alcohol coming from him. Believing that the defendant was DUI, the deputy had the defendant perform field sobriety exercises, which he failed. Post-Miranda, the defendant admitted that he lost control of his Porsche and it crashed into the mailbox. He also admitted drinking before he started driving the Porsche.
The deputy asked the defendant if he could see the Porsche, and the defendant agreed to take the deputy to his house to see it. At the defendant’s house, the deputy saw the Porsche in the garage, and noticed that although the damage was slight it was consistent with having run over the mailbox. While in the garage, the defendant’s wife entered and told the deputy that her husband did not drink any alcoholic beverages after he left the scene of the accident earlier that night. The defendant was then arrested for DUI.
It is unclear exactly why the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to suppress. Based upon these facts, however, there was ample justification for the deputies to arrest the defendant.
Law
enforcement may arrest an individual if, during the investigation of a traffic
accident, they develop probable cause to believe the individual was DUI. See
§316.645 and State v. Sawyer, 905 So.2d 232 (
The
trial court may have believed that any admissions the defendant made to the
deputies were inadmissible because of the accident report privilege. But there
was sufficient evidence that the defendant was DUI without using his
statements. The deputies’ observations of the defendant’s physical traits and
demeanor were admissible; and alone would provide sufficient reason to detain
the defendant for a DUI investigation.
In summary, there was sufficient evidence to justify the initial detention and subsequent arrest of the defendant. Accordingly, the motion to suppress should have been denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this Court reverses the order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress, and this case is remanded to the trial court for action consistent with this Order and Opinion.
DONE AND ORDERED in
_____________________________
Joseph A. Bulone
Circuit Court Judge
_____________________________
David A. Demers
Circuit Court Judge
______________________________
Cynthia J. Newton
Circuit Court Judge
cc: Office of the State Attorney
Honorable John Carassas
J. Kevin Hayslett, Esquire