DUI Defense News From DUI2go.com

Florida DUI Defense Database dui2go

DUI Defense Information

Visit our oldest and largest legal database that emphasizes DUI defense. The site has videos, practical legal advice, legal forms, motions, and cases. There are over 600 articles covering traffic stops, checkpoints, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, the Fourth Amendment, the Intoxilyzer breath machine, police procedures, and DUI law enforcement tactics. Through investigative reporting and years of courtroom experiences we share tons of information in an easy-to-find and understand style. This site is a destination for attorneys, lawyers, drivers, and students. Our subscribers include a law school, a major legal journal, and others who publish our content on their web sites.

Florida DUI Defense Database


This DUI resource including driving under the influence of drugs, including marijuana and prescription drugs. Detailed coverage of drug-related information can be found by either searching the database on centrallaw.com or by directly visiting our Drug Crime database located at http://www.drug2go.com/ . All other legal topics are covered on our other criminal defense news dedicated resource http://www.centrallaw.net/ . For your convenience, we publish the most recent information  on driving under the influence written by an expert below.  For a complete investigation of all our data you can perform a global search using the “Search Our Database” tools available here on this site.




Florida Highway Patrol Video
Florida Highway Patrol Video
Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: April 13, 2017, 12:24 pm
Actual Physical Control, Sleeping Driver, DUI, Probable Cause
Actual Physical Control
Sleeping Driver
DUI, Probable Cause

What happens when a cop approaches a sleeping DUI Driver?


The Facts:

Deputy approaches legally parked car
Makes an approach to vehicle
Second approach to vehicle
Deputy parks patrol car behind suspect
Driver seen with GPS on dash
DUI cop has a "hunch" driver is DUI
Arrests driver

The Ruling:

Court found insufficient basis for a DUI investigation.

The Reasons:

One commentator has observed, "Deputy had legitimate reason to pull alongside defendant's vehicle, which was stopped on roadside at night in isolated location, to conduct wellness check -- Fact that deputy shone flashlight into vehicle and told defendant to roll down window did not convert encounter into investigatory stop -- Where deputy saw that defendant was alert and conscious and defendant responded to inquiry about his well-being, deputy's subsequent actions of parking patrol vehicle behind defendant's vehicle with lights activated and directing defendant to turn off vehicle and provide identification was unlawful investigatory stop -- Motion to suppress is granted." 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 829a


Quotes from a Recent DUI Court Opinion


"In most DUI cases, a traffic stop is made because the officer has probable cause that a traffic infraction has occurred or the officer has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See State v. Wimberly, 988 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly D1856a] and Origi v. State, 912 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D2302a]. There is also a justifiable reason for a traffic stop if there is “. . . a legitimate concern for the safety of the motoring public [which] can warrant a brief investigatory stop to determine whether a driver is ill, tired, or driving under the influence in situations less suspicious than that required for other types of criminal behavior.” State, Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. DeShong, 603 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)." 

"Once Dep. Woell saw that the Defendant was conscious and able to make a response to his inquiry regarding whether he was all right, even if it was poorly done, there should have been more of an effort to discern if there was truly a concern for the Defendant's safety before taking the next steps. The Defendant had done nothing illegal. He had pulled off the road in a proper fashion and had not affected other traffic. He was able to roll down his window and respond to the officer, albeit incoherently in the Deputy's view. There was no visible injury, no blood or vomit. The Defendant was alert and conscious. Tellingly, the Deputy said, while being cross-examined, that he saw (from a decent distance) that the Defendant had bloodshot eyes (the cause of which could be from many reasons) and that he had a hunch the driver was impaired."

"[T]he second approach (by parking behind the Defendant, walking up to the driver's door, and directing him to turn off the car and to provide identification) as not a true welfare check. If he had made more than one inquiry while he was alongside the Defendant, perhaps raised his voice one time to try to get a clearer response, or articulated with more specificity how this particular driver looked to be in some possible distress, this Court's conclusion may have been different. It would be a slippery slope to give an officer carte blanche to use a well-being concern to get around the need for a reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop."

"Based on the circumstances and the case law, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant's Motion to Suppress is GRANTED."







Complete Sleeping Driver Actual Physical Control DUI Court Opinion


STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT CODY NANCARROW Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2016-301820-MMDB, Division 80. October 16, 2016. Bryan A. Feigenbaum, Judge. Counsel: Andrew Draper, Assistant State Attorney, for Plaintiff. G. Kipling Miller, Koleilat & Miller, for Defendant.


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on September 14, 2016 for a hearing on Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence pursuant to Rule 3.190 Fla. R. Crim. P.; the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and Article 1, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution. The Court, having taken notice of the court file, having listened to the testimony of the witnesses, and having considered the arguments from counsel, makes the following findings upon which it enters this Order:

On the late evening of February 14, 2016, around 11 p.m., Deputy Woell of the Volusia County Sheriff's Office was driving westbound on the 1800 block of Taylor Road. This is a dark area in unincorporated Volusia County; there are no businesses or private homes alongside the road and there are no streetlights around.

There is a long bend in this stretch of road and as Dep. Woell was following a line of two or three cars near this curve, one car pulled completely off the road and onto the grassy shoulder. There was no other abnormal driving pattern and this maneuver did not affect the other vehicles. There was no testimony that any of the other vehicles had to brake or swerve.

Dep. Woell pulled alongside the stopped car, between the wood line and the passenger side of the car. He did not turn on his police siren or any flashing lights and did not get on a public address system. There was only one occupant, the driver, who turned out to be the Defendant. Dep. Woell said he pulled over out of a concern for the motorist to make sure everything was all right.

According to Dep. Woell, as he looked over at the Defendant, the Defendant was just staring straight ahead. The Deputy thought it unusual that a driver would not acknowledge his presence, seeing as how he was in a marked police car, so he pointed a flashlight into the car. At that time, the Defendant rolled down the passenger's side window and stared at the police officer. Dep. Woell asked if he was okay and he claimed the Defendant looked down to the passenger's side floorboard area and said something incoherent. Dep. Woell noted that the Defendant was alert, conscious, and was not slumped over and the Deputy made no mention of seeing any visible injury. On cross-examination, Dep. Woell also testified he saw that the Defendant had bloodshot eyes and that he had a hunch the Defendant might be impaired. He conceded that there were no other signs of impairment.

In order to explain his subsequent actions, Dep. Woell claimed that his original concerns for the driver had not dissipated. Dep. Woell thought, without clearly articulating why, that the Defendant was acting in an abnormal manner. He mentioned several scenarios he had been involved in, including situations where a driver was having a panic attack, an adverse reaction to medication, or a medical emergency such as a stroke, but never linked any prior experience with this particular driver's behavior.

The Defendant testified that he pulled off the road since he was lost. He was staring at the UPS navigation system set up in the middle of his dashboard when a car pulled alongside him and someone shined a flashlight into his car and yelled for him to roll down his window. Once he complied, he was asked if he was okay and he replied that he was fine. He surmises he did not say it loud enough to be clearly heard.

Dep. Woell decided to put his vehicle in reverse and now park behind the Defendant's car. He did not put on any takedown or flashing lights, but did turn on rear flashing blue lights to warn other traffic of his presence and they most likely would have been noticeable by the Defendant on this dark road. As the Deputy approached the driver's side window, the window was already rolled down. Dep. Woell asked the Defendant to turn off his car and to provide his driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. Dep. Woell said he began noticing several signs of impairment including the odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech. The Defendant had a great deal of difficulty in finding his driver's license. He claimed he could not find his wallet three times before realizing he had his wallet on him.

The Deputy returned to his own vehicle and began running the information, including performing a warrants check. According to the police reports, the first time of contact with the driver was at 11:10 p.m. Having now seen signs of impairment which led him to believe a DUI investigation was appropriate, Dep. Woell called for back-up at 11:28 p.m. The shift supervisor, Sgt. Amendolare, arrived about 10 minutes later, at 11:39 p.m., and the DUI investigation began.

Dep. Woell had the experience and background to have started the DUI investigation on his own, but testified several factors led him to call for assistance for safety reasons: the dark area where the two vehicles were parked and the bend in the road next to where they were located; the lack of a flat surface to conduct field sobriety exercises [FSEs] except for the road itself since the grassy shoulder was sloped downward; the need for another police car to block traffic if they were going to do FSEs at the scene; and the relative size of the Defendant compared to Dep. Woell.

The defense argues that there was an improper seizure along the side of the road first by shining the flashlight into the Defendant's car and then by parking behind the car and approaching the driver's side window and making direct commands. Secondly, the defense argues that even if there was a valid stop, there was an unlawful detention given the time between the first contact and when the DUI investigation began, around 28 minutes later.

The State initially argued that the defense did not present evidence to show standing and that they did not meet their initial burden of proof under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190 (g)(3) which requires, in a motion to suppress, “. . . the defendant shall present evidence supporting the defendant's position and the state may offer rebuttal evidence.”

The Court took judicial notice of the court file and the allegations in the motion to suppress to find that there was no search warrant issued in this case. See Fla. Stat. § 90.202(6) (court may take judicial notice of the court file). Once that finding is made, the burden is the on the prosecution to prove the validity of the police's actions under the Fourth Amendment. See State v. Hinton, 305 So. 2d 804 (4th DCA 1975); State v. Schubert, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 782a (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Co. Ct., Dec. 12, 2015); and State v. Dawkins, Donaldson, et al, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 170a (Fla. 4th Jud. Cir., Duval Co. Ct., Oct. 23, 2012).

All warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967). The burden is on the State to prove the validity of a search by clear and convincing evidence. State v. Thompson, 72 So. 3d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D2236a].

Did Dep. Woell make proper initial contact with the Defendant and, if that was characterized as an encounter, when did that contact change from an encounter to an investigatory stop? Was there a legitimate reason for that change in status at the time it became an investigatory stop?

The Florida Supreme Court described three distinct types of police-citizen contacts and they are often fluid situations. “The first level is considered a consensual encounter and involves only minimal police contact. During a consensual encounter a citizen may either voluntarily comply with a police officer's requests or choose to ignore them. Because the citizen is free to leave during a consensual encounter, constitutional safeguards are not invoked.” Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185, 186 (Fla. 1993). The second level is “an investigatory stop.” See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). For a police officer to lawfully detain a citizen, “an investigatory stop requires a well-founded, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Mere suspicion is not enough to support a stop.” Popple, Id. at 186. The third level “involves an arrest which must be supported by probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed.” Id.

The fact that Dep. Woell pulled alongside the Defendant's parked car did not automatically create a traffic stop. See State v. Wimbush, 668 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) [21 Fla. L. Weekly D506b] and State v. Carley, 633 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). He did not use lights or siren and in no manner direct the Defendant to pull over.

In most DUI cases, a traffic stop is made because the officer has probable cause that a traffic infraction has occurred or the officer has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See State v. Wimberly, 988 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly D1856a] and Origi v. State, 912 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D2302a]. There is also a justifiable reason for a traffic stop if there is “. . . a legitimate concern for the safety of the motoring public [which] can warrant a brief investigatory stop to determine whether a driver is ill, tired, or driving under the influence in situations less suspicious than that required for other types of criminal behavior.” State, Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. DeShong, 603 So. 2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

Moreover, a police officer has a responsibility to make a well-being check if there is a reason to be concerned for the safety of a citizen, whether they are in a car or not. “It is well recognized that police officers may conduct welfare checks and that such checks are considered consensual encounters that do not involve constitutional implications.” Dermio v. State, 112 So. 3d 551, 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly D776a]. See also Blice v. State, 825 So. 2d 447, 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly D1705a] (“Not knowing whether he was ill, intoxicated, or merely asleep, the officers were duty-bound to investigate and to render assistance if needed. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of their duty.”); Gentles v. State, 50 So. 3d 1192, 1198-9 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D2900a] (“In keeping with such community caretaking responsibilities, [an officer] could properly check the defendant's status and condition to determine whether he needed any assistance or aid. This type of limited contact has been deemed a reasonable and prudent exercise of an officer's duty to protect the safety of citizens.”, citing to Lightbourne v. State, 438 So. 2d 380, 388 (Fla. 1983)); Greider v. State, 977 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly D949b]; Vitale v. State, 946 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D164a] (“[T]he Fourth Amendment does not bar police officers from making warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid . . . .”, citing to Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392-93, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 57 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1978); and State v. Sooy, 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 997b (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir., Volusia Cty. Ct., Aug. 3, 2006).

The facts in the instant case, like the fact patterns in Greider, Gentles, and Dermio, show an encounter continuum between an officer and a defendant. Given the time of night and the isolated location where the Defendant pulled off the road, Dep. Woell had a legitimate reason, if not a duty, to pull alongside the Defendant and make sure everything was all right. A wide gamut of reasons from the minor to the serious could be involved when a driver pulls off the road: mechanical problems with the vehicle, a medical emergency, wanting to take or make a phone call or respond to a text, a lost contact lens, or being lost and wanting to get one's bearings are just a few of the possibilities.

Shining a flashlight into the vehicle or even telling the Defendant to roll down the window did not necessarily convert the initial encounter into an investigatory stop. See Dermio, id; Wimbush, id.; State v. Goodwin, 36 So. 3d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D1289b]; Blake v. State, 939 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) [31 Fla. L. Weekly D2510a]; Pacheco v. State, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 255a (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., Nov. 9, 2012); and State v. Evans, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 451a (Fla. 18th Jud. Cir., Brevard Cty. Ct., Jan. 28, 2014).

Once Dep. Woell saw that the Defendant was conscious and able to make a response to his inquiry regarding whether he was all right, even if it was poorly done, there should have been more of an effort to discern if there was truly a concern for the Defendant's safety before taking the next steps. The Defendant had done nothing illegal. He had pulled off the road in a proper fashion and had not affected other traffic. He was able to roll down his window and respond to the officer, albeit incoherently in the Deputy's view. There was no visible injury, no blood or vomit. The Defendant was alert and conscious. Tellingly, the Deputy said, while being cross-examined, that he saw (from a decent distance) that the Defendant had bloodshot eyes (the cause of which could be from many reasons) and that he had a hunch the driver was impaired.

The State relied on Dermio, id., but there are many distinguishing factors that led the Second DCA to find that opening the driver's door in that case did not transform that encounter into a stop. The driver/defendant in that case was parked in a bar parking lot at 3:30 a.m. with the engine running and the lights on. The driver appeared to be asleep and was only awakened by the officer's tapping a flashlight onto the car window. The officer made three distinct attempts to get a coherent response from the driver before taking the further action of opening the door out of a concern for the driver's safety. As pointed out in Dermio, “. . . the deputy's concern for Dermio's safety in this case had not yet been alleviated because Dermio continued to be incoherent and ‘out of it'.” [emphasis added] Id. at 556. Dep. Woell, by contrast, had just seen the Defendant driving properly and only made one attempt to check on his welfare. As mentioned earlier, there are a plethora of legitimate reasons why a driver may pull over in the same manner as the Defendant.

In Greider, id., an officer approached a legally parked car that had towels covering both the passenger and driver's windows of the car, concealing the interior as if they were curtains. The officer had a safety concern and approached the passenger's side to see the occupant(s). The driver rolled down the passenger's window and said all was fine. Even though his concern for the occupant's welfare was dispelled, the officer went around to the driver's side and ordered the driver to roll down that window. “We do not ignore [the officer's] testimony that he possessed suspicions regarding the unusual circumstances of the towels covering the windows, even after he had been assured all was well. However, a suspicion, by itself, may reflect well on the officer's instincts but it does not meet the Fourth Amendment's requirement of ‘at least reasonable suspicion that the individual seized is engaged in wrongdoing.' Here, there was no evidence of criminal activity. This event was a second level citizen encounter, an investigatory stop, undertaken without appropriate legal justification.” Greider, id. at 793, citing to Popple at 186. Even if Dep. Woell had not had his welfare concern completely dispelled, there should have been a greater effort made, at least further inquiry, before pulling behind the Defendant's car, blue warning lights illuminating the dark road, approaching the driver's window, instructing him to turn off his engine, and making requests for license and registration. Just like the defendant in Greider, the Defendant here would not feel free to disregard the officer's command, end the encounter, and drive away. The Florida Supreme Court “. . . has consistently held that a person is seized if, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would conclude that he or she is not free to end the encounter and depart.” Popple, id. at 188, citing to Jacobson v. State, 476 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1985).

In Gentles, id., an officer approached a parked car in a closed mall parking lot inhabited by a driver who appeared asleep. The car's engine was running. The officer awakened the driver and ordered him to turn off the engine. The Fourth DCA found that the officer had not shown a reasonable concern for the driver's safety before telling him to shut off the car. While the officer had a community caretaker function that could allow him to see if the driver needed any assistance, there has to be a specific concern, as opposed to a generalized concern, for the driver's safety to allow this encounter to continue with greater intrusion by the officer. Id., at 1199-1200.

Dep. Woell's testimony causes concern that he made the second approach (by parking behind the Defendant, walking up to the driver's door, and directing him to turn off the car and to provide identification) as not a true welfare check. If he had made more than one inquiry while he was alongside the Defendant, perhaps raised his voice one time to try to get a clearer response, or articulated with more specificity how this particular driver looked to be in some possible distress, this Court's conclusion may have been different. It would be a slippery slope to give an officer carte blanche to use a well-being concern to get around the need for a reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop. “. . . [I]nvestigatory stops based solely upon an inarticulable hunch or unparticularized suspicion are invalid.” Keeling v. State, 929 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) [31 Fla. L. Weekly D1569a].

Based on the finding that the second contact between Dep. Woell and the Defendant was an investigatory stop and not an encounter, the issue about the time of the Defendant's detention on the side of the road before the back-up arrived to begin the DUI investigation is moot.

Based on the circumstances and the case law,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant's Motion to Suppress is GRANTED.



Source: 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 829a
Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: April 6, 2017, 2:17 pm
Search Warrant for a Vehicle Event Data Recorder / SDM
Do Police Need a Search Warrant
for a Vehicle Event Data Recorder / SDM?

Do Police Need a Search Warrant for a Vehicle Event Data Recorder / SDM?


Tampa, Florida Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, Attorney W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary, Jr. notes that some vehicles have a sensing and diagnostic module ( SDM ), also known as a ''black box.'' Prosecutors alleged recently, data from a Corvette that was downloaded from the black box revealed that a defendant's speed was 103 m.p.h. five seconds before impact and 98 m.p.h. one second before impact. The Speed limit was 40 m.p.h. A recent court ruling noted, ''A search warrant for property may be issued '[w]hen any property constitutes evidence relevant to proving that a felony has been committed.' Section 933.02(3), Fla. Stat. (2006).''

Updated 2017

Another Court has agreed that Florida Police need a search warrant to download the data from a motor vehicle's black box. Search Warrant Required for Vehicle Event Data Recorder . Here is some key information form the update:

Florida DUI Vehicle Event Data Recorder Key Quotes


"An event data recorder is a device installed in a vehicle to record “crash data” or technical vehicle and occupant information for a period of time before, during, and after a crash."

"It is an issue of first impression in Florida whether a warrant is required to search an impounded vehicle’s electronic data recorder or black box."

"17 states have laws addressing event data recorders, which provide under what circumstances the data may be downloaded."

"[T]he constant, unrelenting black box surveillance of driving conditions could contribute to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the recorded data."

Back Ground Story


Courts have held that ''the rate of speed of a vehicle can be firmly shown . . . to be so excessive under the circumstances that to travel that fast under the conditions is by itself a reckless disregard for human life or the safety of persons exposed to the speed.'' The application for the search warrant contained the following:

Accident occurred on a Monday afternoon at 12:48 p.m. in a residential area; Car traveling in excess of 70 m.p.h. in a 40-m.p.h. zone; vehicles traveled one-hundred-twenty-five feet after impact; lack of pre-impact tire marks suggested braking did not occur; and witness heard the gears ''chirp'' as the car accelerated to a faster gear. These facts showing excessive speed in a residential area were enough probable cause to get a search warrant for the car's black box.

These allegations are from court records and the defendant is presumed innocent.


Criminal Traffic Charges? Tell Me Your Story Toll Free 1-877-793-9290 .

Criminal Traffic Charges - SDM Black Box Download
Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: April 4, 2017, 8:59 pm
Florida Arrest Warrant Search
Need Help Clearing Up a Florida Arrest Warrant? 


Call Casey at 813-222-2220.

Free Service | Use the Arrest Warrant Service to Check for Florida Arrest Warrants

Please note: The database contains Florida warrant information as reported to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement by law enforcement agencies throughout the state and authorized for release to the public. FDLE and the reporting agencies strongly recommend that no citizen take any individual action based on this information. 

Warning:

This information is not to be used as a confirmation that any warrant is active, or as probable cause for an arrest. Information contained herein should not be relied upon for any type of legal action.

Source: http://pas.fdle.state.fl.us/pas/person/displayWantedPersonsSearch.a
Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: March 31, 2017, 11:46 am

Dine, Dance, and Detained: How to Avoid Tampa DUI Charges - Tips From an Expert 

Hyde Park DUI Lawyer Which Bars are Cops Watching?
Dine, Dance, and Detain
DUI attorneys in Tampa know there are certain locations generally and several bars, specifically that generate much of the DUI traffic stop action for law enforcement agencies. Police are tracking where drivers who have been arrested reported having their last drink. That led us to a study of where police are on most nights.


Which Bars are Cops Watching?


Unfortunately, for the bars on the lists published by the Tampa Tribune, these bar owners cannot control the police or the surveillance of their locations and their customers. Not surprisingly, in general, the neighborhoods close to the Tampa Police Department headquarters are hot spots for DUI arrests. Hyde Park and Ybor City are frequent entries on incident reports according to the media. Best advice - make sure to arrange a ride home.

"Aside from the decision to waive their Miranda rights, the only good that comes of honest answers to these questions will be finding out where drivers can go to increase the probability of an arrest ending the evening."

Video of a driving under the influence traffic law enforcement officer from court proceedings at the Hillsborough County Courthouse told drivers what many already knew - cops watch bar parking lots. Now drivers and visitors to the area can know statistically what geographic areas are targeted and which bars they may be watching.

Avoiding DUIs in Tampa from WF Casey Ebsary Jr 813.222.2220




Tampa DUI AttorneyMap DUI Arrests
Map of DUI Arrest Locations in Tampa, Florida
"The last-drink survey system does have some flaws, Morgan admitted. Some of the people who are charged with DUI were drinking at a private residence or refuse to answer deputies' questions." TBO.com

One of the DUI hot spots is the Town N' Country area located near Tampa International Airport. The basis for some of these traffic stops is improper lane changes. The roads near the airport are confusing and with so much construction, the signage is not always clear. Visitors are the frequent victim of DUI patrol officers in this section of Hillsborough County, Florida.

The Hyde Park neighborhood has several streets that are one-way only and drivers exiting the bars and restaurants in the community are stopped for going the wrong way on the many one-way streets.

5 Bars in Hillsborough County


"Bars on the lists published by the Tampa Tribune, these bar owners cannot control the police or the surveillance of their locations and their customers."

MacDinton's 405 South Howard Avenue, Tampa, FL 33606

The Kennedy 2408 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33609

Peabody's 15333 Amberly Drive, Tampa, FL 33647

G Bar/Fusion 1401 East 7th Avenue, Tampa, FL 33605

Liquid 1502 East 7th Avenue, Tampa, FL 33605

Source: http://tbo.com/news/crime/where-did-dui-drivers-have-their-last-drink-hillsborough-deputies-know-20141121/

How to avoid a DUI in Tampa Florida

10 Tampa Bars in 2013


"Police officer candidly admits the obvious - cops sit on bar parking lots."

The most frequently reported last drink taken occurs at some of the places listed below. Cops ask people they have arrested:

Where they have been? 
How much they drank?  and 
Where they were going? 

Aside from the decision to waive their Miranda rights, the only good that comes of honest answers to these questions will be finding out where drivers can go to increase the probability of an arrest ending the evening.

Where to go to Increase the Odds of a DUI Arrest 

"Next time you visit some of the area's more popular bars, make sure you arrange a ride home if you plan on partaking in more than one or two alcoholic beverages.' TBO.com

1-MacDinton's
2- The Kennedy
3- Hyde Park Cafe
4- Seminole Hard Rock Casino 
5- Peabody's
6- The Lodge
7- Blue Martini
8- CDB Pizza
9- The Drynk
10- Gaspar's Grotto

Source: http://tbo.com/news/crime/where-did-dui-drivers-have-their-last-drink-hillsborough-deputies-know-20141121/



How to avoid a DUI






Calling Captain Obvious 

D U I Officers Watch Bar Parking Lots.


"Tips to watch locations come from Phone Calls from Bar Managers, letters, pictures"

Court proceedings in many Florida courts can be videotaped. Below is the sworn testimony from a Tampa Police Department Sargeant who was well-versed in police tactics in Tampa Bay.  The police officer candidly admits the obvious - cops sit on bar parking lots. DUI Defense Attorneys have suspected this for years. The video tells us they watch parking lots, act on tips received by phone and other types of electronic messages. We have protected the identity of the officer and give him credit for testifying so candidly. Tips to watch locations come from Phone Calls from Bar Managers, letters, pictures he says, "I get all kinds of stuff."

Assume this is the practice everywhere - Pinellas, Pasco, and Hillsborough counties in Florida. One DUI attorney has said "as there was a basis for the traffic stop and probable cause for the arrest, how or why an officer got involved in a DUI stop is irrelevant." Be warned.



Checklist for hiring an Attorney.

Is the Lawyer Board Certified?
Is the Lawyer Experienced?
Will you receive Personal Attention?
Is the Lawyer a Former DUI Prosecutor?

Visit  W.F. Casey Ebsary Jr. on Vimeo.


 DUI Traffic Stop and 

Field Sobriety Test Videos

D U I Lawyer Casey Ebsary 813-222-2220 is also in the process of publishing an entire video library in HTML 5 / iFrame format so all of our viewers can see the short films on their iPhones and iPads. Enjoy. 

The YouTube video channel is here: 


Channel on Vimeo here: 


Channel on Dailymotion here:

D U I Video Policy


"the video camera is activated when the emergency overhead lights come on and does not shut off until the traffic stop is completed"

We just obtained a copy of the Standard Operating Procedures Manual that is in effect for D U I prosecutions by Florida Highway Patrol Troopers. We have seen several cases in a row in one Florida county where they can't seem to find the video of our client's case. Many of the missing video cases have happened in Pasco County, but the Policy is in effect statewide and should also cover other D U I cases.

How to avoid a DUI - DUI Video Standard Operating Procedures
DUI Video Florida Policy Manual
Apparently, the video camera is activated when the emergency overhead lights come on and does not shut off until the traffic stop is completed. There are also detailed requirements and time periods for retention of videos. Read it for yourself at the link below.

Locations of DUI Arrests in Pinellas County, Florida 33778


This is a zip code in Pinellas County that has DUI arrests reported - 33778. Pinellas County Prosecutors at the main courthouse on 49th Street are noted for their persistence in prosecutions. They are known to list MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) as parties to be notified in their court filings. Fighting DUI charges in this county requires an attorney experienced in handling DUI cases. near the Pinellas County, Florida courthouses.


DUI Defense Attorney needed in Pinellas County, Florida 33701 or 33778?
Casey Ebsary is a Pinellas DUI Lawyer who can help with cases in Pinellas County 33778 or 33701. Casey is experienced in handling DUI cases near the Pinellas County, Florida courthouses.


News and Information About D U I Law Enforcement and Detailed Information on Local D U I Checkpoints 

According to sources, The Florida Highway Patrol charged drivers with DUI during a recent operation. Other drivers received citations or arrests. The checkpoint was located on U.S. Highway 19 at Mainlands Boulevard. The next night, DUI Wolfpack officers on operated on Interstate 275 between the Howard Frankland Bridge and 58th Avenue North and along Gandy Boulevard between the Gandy Bridge and 66th Street. Here are the results.



Two Nights in Pinellas County -

D U I Arrests by the Numbers


The Tally on Night One:

* Five felony arrests
* 3 DUI arrests
* 38 citations
* 17 misdemeanor arrests

The Tally on Night Two:

* 89 other citations
* 4 D U I arrests
* 2 D W L S R (driving while license suspended or revoked)arrests


The operation included officers from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, the Florida Highway Patrol (F H P), and the St. Pete Beach, Largo, and Pinellas Park Police Departments.

Pinellas D U I Lawyer notes, "The Florida Highway Patrol’s Pinellas Park District [conducts] intensified D U I enforcement ... along U.S. 19 from Park Boulevard north to the Pasco County Line. Utilizing additional troopers they specifically target impaired drivers from 8 p.m. to 3 a.m.. Pinellas D U I Lawyer and an Attorney notes an intensified effort on US Highway 19 in Pinellas County North to the Pasco County line."

If you, a friend, or a loved needs a DUI Defense Attorney Pinellas County, Florida, Casey Ebsary is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer who can help . Casey is experienced in handling Pinellas DUI cases near the Pinellas County, Florida courthouses. Casey also has a Pinellas DUI resource here.

More Information About Local DUI Law Enforcement 


Cops in Pinellas County 

Pinellas DUI Lawyer found that two Pinellas County deputies were suspended after making a false arrest report, according to an internal affairs investigation and the St Pete Times. The D U I cops conducted a traffic stop that resulted in a D U I charge and a window tint infraction. In court, the cop gave testimony that contradicted his arrest report. Further investigation revealed that the cop searched the vehicle without gaining consent, even though a report said he had consent. In the same traffic stop, another Deputy made a false report. The internal affairs investigation says that cop lied in his report about reading the suspect his Miranda rights.




Pinellas D U I Mobile Video Unit


Florida DUI Mobile Breath Test - How to avoid a DUI
Florida DUI Mobile Breath Test
Florida DUI Attorney has an exclusive photo of one of the tools used by a D U I Unit in Pinellas County. This St. Petersburg Police Department DUI vehicle was spotted at the County Courthouse. It is suspected that the unit is used in D U I wolfpack operations and at D U I checkpoints. The unit supports an intoxilyzer 8000 mobile tester and has powerful lights on the rear for making D U I videos during night time operations.


Cop Awarded and Another Cop Chastised


One police Officer has been with Largo police for six years. He pulled over another cop for a tag light violation and was chewed out by that cop and another cop with another agency. He was named the department's 2009 officer of the year for arresting nearly 150 impaired drivers during his work with the D U I unit that year. Both agencies are investigating the incident.

How to avoid a DUI

Source: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/pinellas-sheriffs-deputy-disciplined-for-chastising-largo-police-officer/1141219





D U I Hot Spots in Nearby Florida Counties 


"locations are selected for saturation patrols which are also known as Wolf packs"

Pasco County Sheriff , Florida Highway Patrol, STEP, Selective Traffic Enforcement Patrol Unit, DUI Checkpoints, Sobriety checkpoints, Interstate 75
Interstate 75

According to the one local Sheriff with the County Sheriff's Office, they enforce DUI Laws, "[b]y using a data driven approach specific areas that have been identified as high crash locations are selected for saturation patrols which are also known as Wolf packs." Pinellas D U I cops aggressively patrol these areas to locate and arrest impaired drivers. Wolf Pack operations may be conducted at any time or place with or without prior warning. We thought we would run down a list of the most frequent locations where we find DUI cases in Pinellas County, Florida. Interstate 75, US Highway 19, and The Suncoast Parkway State Road 589.



The Pinellas County Sheriff and the Florida Highway Patrol are the primary enforcers. The Sheriff in one nearby county noted, "The Selective Traffic Enforcement Patrol Unit (S.T.E.P.) The S.T.E.P. Unit is part of the Traffic Enforcement Section of the Sheriff’s Office which also contains the Motor Unit. The S.T.E.P. Pinellas County uses deputies to actively enforce traffic laws in Pinellas County mainly during the nighttime hours which have a higher rate or alcohol and/or drug related crashes. The unit's goal is to reduce the collisions involving alcohol and narcotics. The unit's main function is the detection and apprehension of drivers who are suspected of driving while under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. The cops in Pinellas County, Florida will frequently sign their names to DUI citations with a notation that they are "STEP" deputies (Selective Traffic Enforcement Patrol Unit).


Pinellas County D U I Checkpoint

"Local law enforcement agencies and the Florida Highway Patrol participate in regular DUI Checkpoints"

According to One Local Sheriff, Sheriff, "Sobriety checkpoints are an effective law enforcement tool involving the stopping of a specific sequence of vehicles, at a predetermined fixed location to detect impaired drivers. These operations not only serve as a specific deterrent by arresting impaired drivers who pass through the checkpoints, but more importantly, as a general deterrent to persons who have knowledge of the operation. Local law enforcement agencies and the Florida Highway Patrol participate in regular DUI Checkpoints." Unfortunately for some drivers, who may not have had lawyers, their convictions may be on their record to this day.

DUI Defense Attorney needed in Tampa, Florida 33606? Casey Ebsary is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer who was born and raised at 806 South Orleans Avenue in Tampa, Florida 33606. Casey's office is located  in the Channelside District, near the Courthouse.

Tell Your Story. 813-222-2220.

DUI Defense Attorney Lawyer 33606


Highly Qualified DUI Defense Lawyer Near 33606

"Less than one-half of one percent of Florida's attorneys have qualified for this distinction."

DUI Attorney Tampa | Board Certified Expert
DUI Attorney Tampa and Criminal Defense Attorney, W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. is a criminal defense attorney and former DUI prosecutor. Casey prosecuted and defended hundreds of cases in Hillsborough County Florida. Casey is ready to help with all types of criminal charges including drug charges and Driving Under the Influence DUI where drug use is alleged. Let an expert help prepare the best defense.

Casey is Board Certified in Criminal Trial Law by the Florida Bar Board of Legal Specialization and Education. Less than one-half of one percent of Florida's attorneys have qualified for this distinction. Click on the Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial icon to review Casey's qualifications. Then give Casey a call to discuss how he can help you, a family member, or a loved one.

Casey is available for a free phone consultation at 1-877-793-9290 or 813.-222-2220.

Casey Ebsary Tampa DUI Attorney Defense Attorney Channelside Tampa FL

Tampa DUI Attorney | Defense Attorney

Florida Drivers are Targets in Law Enforcement Contests - DUI Arrest Quotas, Contests, and Prizes

DUI Defense Attorney, Arrest Contest, DUI Arrest Contest
Worst DUI Award
A recent press release by a Florida DUI law enforcement agency noted a prize package worth $15,000 or the keys to a new car. These valuable items were on the line during a sponsored contest to see who was the best in the business in traffic law enforcement. Tampa DUI Attorney, Casey Ebsary has been studying these contests for years and this year's disturbing update shows a continued trend.

"placing third, which equals $10,000 in money for the agency to spend" 

Cops are rewarded for traffic stops. Notwithstanding their constant denials that they have quotas. We have generally referred to these as DUI arrest contests. Feel free to use the search window on our website to review this sordid history.  We will cite all authorities so our DUI Defense Attorney readership can use them at their next jury trial, the next time these folks deny statistically driven, money-motivated, prize-seeking arrest decisions, give them with a healthy dose of the truth.

Law Enforcement Contests

Police are proud of these contests in their media campaigns, but are quick to deny before juries and judges. A recently uncovered memo from a Florida West coast law enforcement agency touted the number of arrest contest events, the number of arrests, and the completion of a project using "data-driven" statistics. Source: http://www.tspd.us/2013%20Spring%20Strategic%20plan%20review.pdf

One Florida Cop Shop has been awarded "1st place honors in a 'DUI Challenge' and a ‘Law Enforcement Challenge.' ” The agency actually did a Press release, like a sports team announcing selection to the All Star game  or Home Run Derby that three cops had been given awards based upon the numbers of arrests each DUI cop had made. Source: http://www.pnj.com/ Another cop shop "accepted the award at the DUI awards ceremony which was held in Orlando Florida."Source: http://www.thebradentontimes.com  

More about that big DUI party in Orlando in a minute .

DUI Awards | Cash and Car

DUI Law enforcement agencies are proudly posting their "accomplishments" in these arrest contests. One agency "will be entered to draw the winning key that starts a brand-new vehicle, among other prizes." Source: http://www.polksheriff.org/NewsRoom/News%20Releases/Pages/05-30-2013.aspx The DUI cops proudly proclaim: "the agency will be awarded 10,000 "challenge points" for placing third, which equals $10,000 in money for the agency to spend on traffic safety related items (second place earns $12,000, and first place is $15,000). Source: http://www.polksheriff.org/

The State of Florida encourages law enforcement again this year by holding an Olympic-like contest in Orlando. A photo in the report had a cop on foot running behind a traffic patrol motorcycle. This contest kept statistics and awarded performance based on statistical analysis of annual numbers of traffic enforcement actions. They call it the Florida Law Enforcement Challenge. Prizes were awarded for "inventive approaches" to traffic law enforcement. One news source at a major Florida University described the contest as, "creating effective traffic programs that focus on increasing the safety of drivers in Florida. Tackling topics such as drunk driving and protect[ing] the drivers . . . .." The incentive was an award worth $15,000.00. Source: http://www.fsunews.com/article/20140702/FSVIEW/140702006/FSUPD-takes-first-law-enforcement-challenge 

Florida DUI Arrest, Tampa DUI Attorney
Win a New Car
"draw the winning key that starts a brand-new vehicle"

We just studied a case where "inventive" approaches were used to justify traffic stops that resulted in a felony arrest. The Florida Supreme Court will not tolerate these inventions. Source: http://www.drug2go.com/2014/07/can-color-of-vehicle-be-probable-cause.html  . However, by the time a citizen has been arrested, a booking photograph has been posted by the arrest contestants, and their insurance has skyrocketed during years of litigation, what is the true cost?

Traffic and DUI Cop Party Near Disney World

A big shindig was held in the resort-capital of the world, Orlando, Florida. The hotel and restaurants are nice. You can get a discounted rate of $125.00 per night if you shop around. Our family just spent the better part of a week there (at our and not the taxpayers' expense). One sponsor is the Florida Law Enforcement Liaison (LEL) Program. Their office is located in an office park in  Florida's capital Tallahassee. That operation is funded by "the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). " Source: http://www.floridalel.org/About . They have even posted a contest rewards catalog online. Source: http://www.floridalel.org/Resources/Online-Catalog 

Sales people blog about incentives, as for profit corporations are on the bandwagon at a reception for cops at the Convention near Disney World. Source: http://www.lasertech.com/blogs/Traffic-safety/post/2014/06/02/Florida-Law-Enforcement-Challenge-2014.aspx  Meanwhile, collectively consider the agencies who participate in these profitable and rewarding misadventures as this year's the nominees for worsts.
http://www.duiteam.com

Other DUI Information About Tampa, Florida


Tampa Bay DUI Convictions and Dismissals by the Numbers

www.dui2go.com/2016/09/tampa-bay-dui-dismissed-statistics.html

 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Sep 23, 2016 - According to the data, "the odds of getting a DUI charge dismissed or reduced to a lesser charge is about one in four"

Fourth of July Law Enforcement and DUI Patrols in Tampa Bay

www.dui2go.com/2016/06/fourth-july-law-enforcement-dui.html

 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Jun 30, 2016 - Whether you're on the road or at the beach—have a safe and happy holiday weekend! Expect DUI checkpoints or other deployments ...

Tampa DUI - Top Ten Arrest Locations

www.dui2go.com/2011/05/tampa-dui-top-ten-arrest-locations.html

 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
May 28, 2011 - Tampa DUI Attorney / Lawyer has just received information from the Tampa Police Department on their top ten arrest locations for DUI charges.

Places Tampa Bay DUI Cops will be Watching this Week

www.dui2go.com/2016/06/places-tampa-bay-dui-cops-watch.html

 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Jun 27, 2016 - Here are a few places that DUI patrols may be monitoring this week. Amalie Arena is a few blocks from my old Channelside Office - cops are ...

Tampa DUI Arrests By The Numbers - DUI Attorney Tampa On Call

www.dui2go.com/2015/09/tampa-dui-arrests-by-numbers.html
 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Sep 7, 2015 - DUI statistics Tampa, Florida DUI Arrests By The Numbers.
Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: March 22, 2017, 10:00 am
DUI Attorney Pasco County FL
Fighting for You, a Friend, or a Loved One

"Trooper sets records for DUI arrests."

Call 813-222-2220 


What happens to my driver's license after a Pasco County DUI Arrest?


If you refuse to take a breath, blood, or urine test after being arrested for DUI, or if results of your breath test were .08% or above, your license will be suspended unless a written demand for an administrative hearing is filed within 10 days after arrest.  Call 813-222-2220 for help now.

DUI News Update from Pasco County, Florida


Video Florida Highway Patrol Arrest Contest

I continue to be concerned with the game that some police agencies have made out of DUI arrests. Cops in Pasco County Florida set out to break a record of some sort and informed the media that a DUI record was broken. The headline reads: "Trooper sets records for DUI arrests."


Trooper Ron Evans and his colleague "fellow Trooper Richard Arias focus a lot of attention of U.S. 19" so says Fox News in Tampa, Florida. "Evans has developed a well-known reputation for getting suspected drunk drivers off the streets. Last year, he made 238 arrests; back in 2004, he arrested 300." says Fox News. Arias became a Trooper less than a year ago says capitalsoup.com.





Pasco Arrest Award - 100 DUI Arrests Each..

I remain concerned about sparsely populated Pasco County, Florida that consistently wins "awards" for huge numbers of arrests. One recent report stated: "Deputies Shane Metzler, 31, Robert Monsegur, 42 and Adam Cinelli, 30, received a Meritorious Service Award for Accomplishment for making more than 100 DUI arrests in Pasco."

These awards encourage arrests and are unique to the crime. The awards do not seem to account for numbers of wrongly accused citizens who may be ultimately cleared of these charges. We are reviewing one case where the suspect took a breath test with a .000 result and there were no indications of illegal drug test results.

About W. F. ''Casey'' Ebsary, Jr.


W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr.
Former Prosecutor and
Board Certified Criminal
Trial Lawyer
Casey has fought Pasco County Prosecutors for years. Pasco DUI Attorney Lawyer, W. F. ''Casey'' Ebsary, Jr. can answer your questions. Casey is a former Florida DUI / DWI prosecutor, You can contact Casey by calling 813-222-2220. Casey has been practicing law for over 20 years, has handled thousands of criminal cases, and knows how to help you.

Board Certified
Seasoned Prosecutor
Experienced Attorney
Legal Analyst Radio | TV
Distinguished Author
Top Rated by Lawyers.com


Pasco Deputy Sheriff Arrested

I just reviewed the report of a Deputy being arrested for Driving under the Influence in Pasco County, Florida. We have removed his name from this report to protect his innocence. After the standard decision that the guy failed the roadside tests, they arrested him and then he blew UNDER the legal limit.

The report states the Deputy "was pulled over a few minutes before midnight, after a[nother] deputy saw him turn from U.S. 19 onto State Road 52, nearly heading into oncoming traffic, according to a Pasco County Sheriff's Office report. "

The symptoms noted in the report are almost identical to the field sobriety test results in numerous other DUI cases handled in Pasco County by my office. The reports states the Deputy "had 'a strong odor of alcohol' on his breath and 'bloodshot and glassy' eyes . . . . His blood alcohol level was measured at 0.072 and 0.067, just below the 0.08 threshold at which Florida law presumes impairment, but [the deputy] failed the field sobriety tests, the report said. He told deputies he had four or five drinks. [the deputy], who began working at the jail in 2007, was charged with DUI and released on bail. He is on unpaid leave until the charge is resolved.

A DUI Arrest Contest Winner

Cops are continuing their efforts to win DUI arrest contests.Florida Highway Patrol spokesman for the highway patrol’s Tampa Bay area troop says, “Pasco Countydoes not necessarily have a higher number of drivers, but more are arrested in Pasco County . . . ." We ask how can a small Florida county "win" this contest repeatedly?

One media source reports,"troopers made 942 DUI arrests in Pasco, compared to 294 in Hillsborough County." The report also noted, "While Evans was a finalist for the award in 2010 he was bested by Trooper Michael Hollis, Jr. who also works in the Land O’ Lakes area, with 203 DUI arrests in 2009. In 2008, their colleague Terry Goswick Jr. captured the award with 190 arrests in 2009."

"For four years in a row, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper working in Land O’ Lakes area has made the most driving under the influence arrests for the agency in the state." Notably, the Highway Patrol has not done a press release about how many of those arrests are ultimately thrown out of court.


More Information About W. F. ''Casey'' Ebsary, Jr.


W. F. ''Casey'' Ebsary, Jr. has helped in hundreds if not thousands of DUI cases. He has represented clients in driving under the influence, driving while intoxicated (DUI/DWI) cases in Pasco County Florida. He is a former Assistant State Attorney and Prosecutor.

Mr. Ebsary also has received an AV Rating by the Martindale Hubbell Law directory. This is their highest rating and shows that a lawyer has reached the height of professional excellence. He has practiced law for many years, and is recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity.

Law Office of W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr
2102 W Cleveland St
Tampa, Florida 33606
(813) 222-2220
centrallaw@centrallaw.com


Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: March 21, 2017, 10:51 am
Several colleges and universities have spring breaks that overlap this year. Not only are the universities of Tampa, South Florida, and St. Pete College all on Spring Break on the Suncoast at the same time, there are students arriving to the Tampa Bay area from all over the country.

"seemingly minor charges can result in a 
permanent criminal record"

Come on Vacation Leave on Probation


Police are stepping up enforcement efforts while all the students are here. Many of the roads on the beaches have very low speed limits and expect strict enforcement of all traffic laws, including  speed limits. Here is a video that has been produced to put the word out that police will have a zero tolerance policy towards  some interesting activities that  students may be inclined to try. Do not Come on Vacation Leave on Probation.
 . Previous Tampa Bay Area Spring Break Story follows

Previous Tampa Bay Area Spring Break Story


Here is a story about the types of tactics and criminal charges that police and prosecutors will use. As we previously reported, a "non-discretionary “zero tolerance” policy to encountering and arresting Spring Break visitors. Police are using fairly vague and discretionary charges, such as Disorderly Conduct Florida Statute 877.03. These seemingly minor charges can result in a permanent criminal record. " 

Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: March 2, 2017, 1:55 am
DUI Lawyer Polk County, FL

Polk DUI Attorney

813-222-2220

Charged With Driving Under the Influence? 

Help for You, a Friend, or Loved One





A Polk DUI Lawyer is standing by. DUI / DWI / Drunk Driving is serious charge to have on your driving record in Polk County. You need a serious defense. DUI Defense can be challenging. The police are the main state witnesses. Scientific evidence from the Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test or blood tests may be presented against you. Damaging evidence against you may include: the breath test, officer's testimony, and Standard Field Sobriety Tests.


Search Casey’s Huge Polk County Florida DUI Database for Free




W.F. ''Casey Ebsary, Jr.'' is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer and DUI - DWI attorney who helps in Polk County, Florida, has knowledge of these issues, and can help you establish your defense against these and other traffic offenses.

Polk D U I Arrests by the Numbers


We uncovered a report that there are about 1300 to as many as 1600 people arrested each year for DUI in Polk County according to arrest statistics for each Florida County. The most recent traffic citation and DUI Arrest numbers for Polk County are available on our Polk County Florida DUI Law Blog.



How To Choose an Attorney



  

Defend yourself against this charge with an experienced D U I lawyer right now. For a free case analysis and evaluation, please call or submit your case information on a DUI in Florida, in Polk County or in the Lakeland Area. Many people wish that they had saved the facts of their case while it was still fresh in their mind. We have developed an Interview that can help you to preserve the evidence of your case to help defend you.


Polk County Includes the Cities of :


Auburndale, Bartow, Crystal Lake, Cypress Gardens,Davenport, Dundee, Fedhaven, Fort Meade, Frostproof, Haines City, Highland City, Highland Park, Kathleen, Lake Alfred, Lake Wales, Lakeland, Mulberry, Nalcrest, Polk City, and Winter Haven
There have been 1300 to as many as 1600 people arrested each year for D U I in Polk County, Florida. Get the arrest statistics for each Florida County as a free PDF download. Get the most recent traffic citation and DUI Arrest numbers as a free PDF download.
DUI News is also available on the DUI Law Blog for free.
Since there is no Bureau of Administrative Reviews Office Locations in Polk County, offenses in Polk County including many DUI issues, such as Under Suspension, Need Driver License for Work and Hardship Driver Licenses, must be resolved at the 2814 East Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa, 33610-4479 Office (813) 276-5795


Other Drivers License issues may be resolved at the Driver License Offices such as having a Driver license issued, taking a driving test and having an ID Card issued. There are three offices in Polk County:
Polk County Driver License Offices
CityStreet
Address
Phone
Number
Office
Hours
Comments
Haines City930 Lily Avenue East 33844-4350
Map to location
(863) 421-3202Mon-Fri
8am-5pm
Make Appointment Online-All Services CDL Hazmat
Cash, Check, MasterCard, Discover Card, or American Express Accepted - See Fee Schedule
Lake Wales692 U.S. Hwy 60 West 33853
Map to location
(863) 678-4160Mon-Fri
8am-5pm
Make Appointment Online-All Services CDL Hazmat
Cash, Check, MasterCard, Discover Card, or American Express Accepted - See Fee Schedule
Lakeland3249 Lakeland Hills Boulevard 33805-2299
Map to location
(863) 499-2323Mon-Fri
8am-5pm
Make Appointment Online-All Services CDL Hazmat
Cash, Check, MasterCard, Discover Card, or American Express Accepted - See Fee Schedule




For More Florida DUI DWI Defense Qualifications & Information Visit Us at the DUI Information Links Below

 

More D U I Information on DUI Drug Court Division


Polk County DUI Attorney reports on the DUI Drug court division established by Judge Ronald A. Herring. The Judge ordered that any multiple DUI offender may have the option of DUI Court as part of a plea offer. If the offer and the case is accepted into the division, the Polk County DUI defendant's case may be transferred to the Judge presiding over DUI or Drug Court . The DUI/Drug Court shall be a condition of the offender's probation. Also involved in the DUI Court are: Judges, Assistant State Attorneys, Defense Attorneys, County Probation, Polk County Sheriff's Office, Lakeland Police Department Offices, AA representatives and MADD representatives.

If you may be eligible for the new DUI Court program, we can help.

Polk County DUI Attorney Reports


Polk DUI Attorney website and Lakeland Ledger reports 54 Polk DUI cases were thrown out. The reason - what has been suspected for years, since computers have been used to write D U I arrest reports:

1. Cops use a template to write report(s);
2. Cops take a previous D U I report(s) and change the name, leaving details the same;
3. Cops use the same language when talking about the field sobriety exercises.

The Polk County Sheriff Deputy had made "made about 124 arrests for DUI since he began working last year" According to published reports.

Source: www.theledger.com/article/20090808/news/908085027

DISCLAIMER:  The foregoing is not to be construed as legal advice to or for any specific individual. Always seek the advice of counsel for specific legal problems. The submission of this does not establish an attorney client relationship.


Other Stories About Polk County and Lakeland, Florida


DUI Florida Vehicle Immobilization

www.dui2go.com/2012/10/dui-florida-vehicle-immobilization.html

 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Oct 1, 2012 - The service is a licensed service provider, with over 10 years experience, for Court ordered probation in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Polk and Pasco ...

DUI Attorney Tampa On Call | 813.222.2220 | Hillsborough County FL

www.dui2go.com/

Oct 29, 2016 - W.F. ''Casey Ebsary, Jr.'' is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer and DUI - DWI attorney who helps in Polk County, Florida, has knowledge of ...
www.dui2go.com/2012/06/florida-dui-evidence-missing-video.html
 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Jun 12, 2012 - ... Policy is in effect statewide and should also cover Hillsborough DUI cases, Pinellas DUI cases, Polk DUI cases, and Hernando DUI cases.

             


Please submit all questions and comments to:
Law Office of Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer
W. F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr.
2102 W Cleveland St
Tampa, FL 33606
813.222.2220
P.O. Box 1550
Tampa FL 33601
813.225.0202*(FAX)
* NOTICE: The publication of our fax number on this web sites is not to be construed as the firm's consent to received unsolicited fax advertisements, nor does it create an Existing Business Relationship (EBR).
Copyright © 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 
The Law Office of W. F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr., Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer
All rights reserved.

Last revision:  March 1, 2017
The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. 
Before you decide, ask the lawyer to send you free written information about their qualifications and experience.
Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: March 1, 2017, 3:16 pm
DUI checkpoints in Tampa, FL
Police Roadblocks for DUI

Traffic Roadblock - Police Roadblocks for DUI


Traffic Roadblocks are in use in Tampa, Florida. Jump to bottom of page for more roadblock coverage and a map. Meanwhile, watch out for a #DUI checkpoint traffic roadblock on Fri, Feb 17 to Sat, Feb 18, near the 7200 block of Adamo Dr. 10 p.m. – 1 a.m.  in Tampa. This spot is conveniently located right near the Hillsborough County Jail on Orient Road in Hillsborough County Florida.

State and federal authorities frequently provide the funding for these operations. Although there are a few DUI arrests, there are frequently arrests for a broad range of criminal charges. We expect arrests for drug crimes, warrants, and minor driver's license issues. Be careful.



More Traffic Checkpoint Information



Tampa DUI Checkpoint Roadblock Police Manual

www.dui2go.com/2014/06/tampa-dui-checkpoint-roadblock-police.html

Officers may occasionally use a motor vehicle checkpoint, commonly referred to as a roadblock, as a lawful means of traffic law enforcement.


Visit to a DUI Checkpoint - Video


www.dui2go.com/2014/01/visit-to-dui-checkpoint-video.html

We visited a DUI Checkpoint to see what was up. Video courtesy of http://duitampabay.com/.

DUI Checkpoint | There's an App For That | Banned

www.dui2go.com/2011/03/dui-checkpoint-theres-app-for-that.html?m=0

Even though a valid DUI Checkpoint must be announced to the public, Congress may try to ban the use of Mobile Device Applications that announce checkpoints.
Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: February 18, 2017, 5:43 am
DUI Video, Florida DUI Video Requirements, DHSMV, Court
Video in DUI Case Does Not Lie

Video in DUI Case Does Not Lie 


The Video in DUI Case Does Not Lie - So Says the Florida Supreme Court. A hearing officer virtually ignored discrepancies between a video and the reports and the testimony of a law enforcement officer. The court called shenanigans on the lack of body camera recording that could have been produced, but was not. Below are a few passages from this case, the complete Case is below.

"evidence which is totally contradicted and totally negated and refuted by video evidence of record, is not competent, substantial evidence. "

Video on Youtube in this important case is embedded below. The cop cruises along for over 14 minutes and the driving looks fine. Cop drives past a couple of his buddies in the median and activates his overhead lights. The cop is out of the car and in the video for less that 2 minutes. Video is almost a half-hour long and we never see the citizen out of the car to see or hear if he even appeared or sounded impaired. One of our sources says a Court, "applies correct law by rejecting officer testimony as being competent, substantial evidence when that testimony is contrary to and refuted by objective real-time video evidence . . . ." Florida Law Weekly.

You can skip to about 12:00 minutes to see what the video shows about this allegation of impaired driving. There is no audio in the original (court has made it available here DUI in-car Video of Traffic Stop ) - judge the alleged bad driving for yourself.


DUI Video Case Excerpts:



"evidence which is totally contradicted and  totally negated and refuted by video evidence of record, is not competent, substantial evidence. "

"failed to activate his body camera and microphone during his direct contact"

"Every case involving a license suspension contains a Fourth Amendment analysis of whether there was reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle or probable cause to believe that the driver was in physical control of the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol"

"the real-time video of the events contradicts and refutes the verbal description"




Supreme Court of Florida



____________



No. SC14-2195
____________

JOSEPH B. WIGGINS
Petitioner,

vs.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES
Respondent.

[January 31, 2017]

LEWIS, J.
This case is before the Court to review the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Wiggins, 151 So. 3d 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).  Here, the First District certified a question of great public importance, which we rephrase as follows:
WHETHER A CIRCUIT COURT CONDUCTING FIRST- TIER CERTIORARI REVIEW UNDER SECTION 322.2615, FLORIDA STATUTES, APPLIES THE CORRECT LAW BY REJECTING OFFICER TESTIMONY AS COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHEN THAT TESTIMONY IS CONTRARY TO VIDEO EVIDENCE.

This certified question presents a pure question of law and is, therefore, subject to de novo review.  See Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation Auth., 8 So. 3d 1076, 1084-85 (Fla. 2008).  We have jurisdiction.  Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
We answer the rephrased certified question in the affirmative and hold that in this context of section 322.2615 first-tier review, a circuit court must review and consider video evidence of the events which are of record as part of its competent, substantial evidence analysis.  Further, we hold in this limited context that evidence which is totally contradicted and totally negated and refuted by video evidence of record, is not competent, substantial evidence.

Statutory Background


Section 322.2615, Florida Statutes, provides for the suspension of one’s driving privilege for driving under the influence (DUI).  Specifically, the statute authorizes a law enforcement officer to suspend one’s driving privilege when that person is driving or in physical control of a vehicle and has a blood- or breath-alcohol level of .08 or higher.  Alternatively, a law enforcement officer may also suspend the driving privilege of one who refuses to submit to a urine, breath, or blood-alcohol test.  § 322.2615(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011).  If the driver refuses to perform a lawfully requested urine, breath, or blood test, the officer must notify the driver that his or her license will be suspended for a year, or eighteen months if the driver has previously had his or her license suspended for failure to submit to such tests.  § 322.2615(1)(b)1.a.  Section 322.2615 is to be read in pari materia with section 316.1932, Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Hernandez, 74 So. 3d 1070, 1076 (Fla. 2011), as revised on denial of rehearing (Nov. 10, 2011), a statute which provides that the requested sobriety tests “must be incidental to a lawful arrest” and that the officer must have “reasonable cause to believe such person was driving or was in actual physical control of the motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages.”  § 316.1932(1)(a)1.a., Fla. Stat. (2015).  Once the license is suspended, the driver may request review by the Department of Motor Safety and Vehicles (Department) through an administrative hearing before the Department within ten days after issuance of the notice of suspension.  § 322.2615(1)(b)3.  The statute further provides that the review hearing will essentially function as a trial before the Department:

Such formal review hearing shall be held before a hearing officer designated by the department, and the hearing officer shall be authorized to administer oaths, examine witnesses and take testimony, receive relevant evidence, issue subpoenas for the officers and witnesses identified in documents [submitted for review], regulate the course and conduct of the hearing, question witnesses, and make a ruling on the suspension.

§ 322.2615(6)(b).

During a formal review hearing for license suspension, the hearing officer is limited to the following questions, which must be established by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. Whether the law enforcement officer had probable cause to believe that the person whose license was suspended was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in this state while under the influence of alcoholic beverages or chemical or controlled substances.

2. Whether the person whose license was suspended refused to submit to any such test after being requested to do so by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer.

3. Whether the person whose license was suspended was told that if he or she refused to submit to such test his or her privilege to operate a motor vehicle would be suspended for a period of 1 year or, in the case of a second or subsequent refusal, for a period of 18 months.

§ 322.2615(7)(b).

The hearing officer’s authorization to determine the “lawfulness of the stop” is built into the provision of the essential element of whether probable cause existed.  Schwartz v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 920 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (quoting Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. DeShong, 603 So. 2d 1349, 1351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)).  Finally, the hearing officer’s decision may be reviewed by an Article V judge or judges in a circuit court by a writ of certiorari.  § 322.2615(13).

Facts and Procedural Background


The facts surrounding the case before us concern the stop and arrest of Joseph B. Wiggins for driving under the influence of alcohol.  Because there is a
conflict between the facts as reported by the arresting officer and the facts as demonstrated by the real-time video evidence of the event, we will present both versions of the facts.

Arrest Report and Testimony


According to the oral testimony of the officer based on his report, on the night of the stop, there was no surrounding traffic.  Upon his first observation of Wiggins’ truck, Officer Saunders wrote in the arrest report that the vehicle “appeared to swerve from one lane to another.”  Both Saunders and Wiggins were driving in the same direction, but Wiggins drove in the right lane while Saunders followed in the left lane.  Saunders further reported that Wiggins drifted within his lane, traveled thirty miles per hour in a forty-five mile per hour zone, and crossed over the outside lane line—nearly striking a right-side curb before swerving back into his lane.  Saunders stated that, as they approached an intersection, Wiggins “braked hard for no apparent reason and then accelerated back to about 30 miles per hour,” continued to drift over the line, and nearly hit the curb again.  As he entered another intersection, Wiggins reportedly “braked hard again and swerved right” and almost hit the curb.  Wiggins then “made a quick lane change into the left lane in front of [Saunders]” and tapped his brakes.  The report further states that as they approached another traffic light, Wiggins passed the opening for a left turn lane and then slowly drifted over the line to enter the lane.  Wiggins then
“made a very wide left turn and had to realign his truck as he straightened out.”  Believing Wiggins to be impaired, Saunders activated his emergency lights.  Wiggins reportedly continued in a straight path and made a sharp right turn into a drug store parking lot.  Wiggins then drove through the marked parking spaces and stopped, partially obstructing the travel lane.

Thereafter, Saunders reported that he approached Wiggins, who already had his driver’s license and registration in hand, and explained the reason for the stop.  Saunders noticed a strong odor of alcohol and observed that Wiggins’ eyes were bloodshot and glassy.  In addition, Saunders noted that “[h]is movements were slow and deliberate.”  When asked if he had been drinking any alcoholic beverages, Wiggins reportedly replied that he had consumed a few drinks.  Wiggins was then asked to perform field sobriety exercises but refused.  Saunders informed Wiggins that his refusal to participate in field sobriety exercises would be used against him in court and asked Wiggins to exit the vehicle.  After Wiggins refused, Saunders advised him that he was being arrested for driving under the influence.  Eventually, Saunders convinced Wiggins to exit the vehicle.  Wiggins was subsequently transported to the Clay County Jail, where Saunders requested a breath test.

After his arrest, Wiggins requested a formal hearing before the Department pursuant to section 322.2615.  During the hearing, Saunders acknowledged that it was the sheriff’s standing general order to also record contact with a person that an officer believes to be impaired.  However, Saunders failed to activate his body camera and microphone during his direct contact with Wiggins.  Therefore, the video recording available at the hearing was a real-time video taken from Saunders’ dashboard camera with no audio.

Saunders also admitted that there were inconsistencies between his arrest report and the video.  Specifically, the report stated that Wiggins quickly changed lanes in front of Saunders, while the video indicated that Saunders was the one who had changed lanes to get behind Wiggins, and Wiggins then changed into the vacant lane.  Otherwise, Saunders continued to insist that Wiggins weaved in and out of his lane, almost hit the curb, braked erratically, and made a wide turn.

Actual Video


Due to the dissent’s representations, we embed a copy of the actual video in this opinion.1  The dashboard camera on Saunders’ vehicle recorded Wiggins’ driving pattern from the time Saunders first saw the vehicle to the time Wiggins was stopped.  As Saunders trailed Wiggins’ vehicle that night, the video showed Wiggins driving totally within the proper lines.  Wiggins did not cross any lines,
 1.  To access the entire real-time video of the events, see https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/CaseDocuments/2014/2195/DashVideo.wmv  .
 
nor did he nearly hit the curb.  Wiggins did change lanes only once in an apparent attempt to clear the lane for Saunders, but he utilized his turn signal before doing so.  Wiggins then activated his turn signal to move into a left turn lane, braked in preparation to turn at a traffic light, and made a normal left turn once the traffic light turned green.  As Wiggins turned left, Saunders activated his emergency lights.  Upon activation of the police emergency lights, Wiggins made a normal right turn into an empty drug store parking lot.  The area was dark and Wiggins came to a stop and parked in front of the building.  Saunders subsequently exited his vehicle and approached Wiggins’ vehicle with another officer.    

Notwithstanding that the real-time video evidence totally contradicted and refuted the testimony and arrest report of Officer Saunders, the hearing officer affirmed the suspension of Wiggins’ license.  The dissent has attempted to incorrectly transform the appellate posture of this case into a de novo factual dispute, contrary to all concepts of appellate procedure.


Circuit Court Opinion and Order


Subsequent to the Department’s administrative hearing decision, Wiggins filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Fourth Judicial Circuit Court pursuant to section 322.2615, Florida Statutes.  The first level of review in the circuit court was limited to whether Wiggins was accorded procedural due process, whether the essential requirements of the law had been observed by the Department, and
whether the administrative findings and judgment of the Department were supported by competent, substantial evidence.  The court recognized that, as a circuit court conducting first-tier certiorari review, it was not permitted to totally reweigh the evidence de novo.  However, the court reasoned that the objectivity and neutrality of the video evidence placed the circuit court in the same position as the hearing officer when reviewing the evidence, and that as an Article V judge, the court had an obligation to review the evidence to determine whether competent, substantial evidence had been presented.

Here, the court concluded that the video evidence refuted both the arrest report and Saunders’ testimony.  Specifically, the court found that the vehicle in the video did not swerve within its lane, did not cross over the lane line, did not nearly strike the curb, nor did it brake for no reason.  Furthermore, the court determined that the video depicted Wiggins intentionally changing lanes into the turn lane with proper signals and thereafter making a normal left hand turn, as opposed to making a wide turn.

Based on these clearly revealed contradictions, the circuit court concluded that the arrest report and Saunders’ testimony based on that incorrect report failed to constitute competent, substantial evidence.  Thus, the circuit court held it was unreasonable as a matter of law for the hearing officer to accept the report and the testimony as true despite the objective and neutral images of the real-time video evidence of the event.

First District Court of Appeal


Following the circuit court’s decision, the Department sought review in the First District Court of Appeal.  The district court’s second-tier review of the circuit court’s order was further limited to only two questions: (1) whether the circuit court afforded Wiggins procedural due process and (2) whether the circuit court applied the correct law, Wiggins, 151 So. 3d at 461-62, a principle consistently violated in the dissenting opinion.

Although the circuit court based its order on its finding that the report and the testimony which were contrary to the real-time video evidence did not amount to competent, substantial evidence, the First District concluded that the circuit court essentially reweighed the evidence and conducted a de novo review in violation of this Court’s opinion in Dusseau v. Metropolitan Dade County Board of County Commissioners, 794 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 2001).  Wiggins, 151 So. 3d at 462-63.  Specifically, the First District opined that Dusseau established that a circuit court is limited to a determination of whether an agency’s decision was supported by competent, substantial evidence.  Id. at 463.  Accordingly, the district court concluded that the circuit court in the instant case should have ended its review when it found evidence in the arrest report and testimony that supported the agency’s decision.  Id. at 464.

Further, the court reasoned that the hearing officer’s factual findings should have been accorded deference because she is experienced on such matters and heard the live testimony herself.  Id. at 465.

The First District granted the Department’s petition, quashed the circuit court’s order, and remanded with directions to apply the law.  Id. at 471.  Finally, taking into consideration the prevalence of video evidence, the First District certified the following question of great public importance for this Court’s review:

WHETHER A CIRCUIT COURT FAILS TO APPLY THE CORRECT LAW BY REJECTING AS NON-CREDIBLE THE ENTIRETY OF AN ARRESTING OFFICER’S TESTIMONY AND REPORT CONCERNING A TRAFFIC STOP, UPON WHICH THE HEARING OFFICER’S FACTUAL FINDINGS RELIED, BASED SOLELY ON THE CIRCUIT COURT’S OWN INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF EVENTS ON THE VIDEO OF A TRAFFIC STOP?

Id. at 471.

 In his dissent, Judge Van Nortwick disagreed that Dusseau required a culling through the record only for whatever facts supported the administrative hearing order.  Id. at 474 (Van Nortwick, J., dissenting).  Otherwise, the competent, substantial evidence standard would be rendered useless.  Id. at 474.  In the opinion of Judge Van Nortwick, evidence that is unreliable is not competent, substantial evidence.  Id. at 476.

Analysis


As explained on numerous occasions, a circuit court conducting first-tier certiorari review of an administrative decision is limited to determining (1) whether due process was accorded, (2) whether the essential requirements of the law were observed, and (3) whether the administrative findings and judgment were supported by competent, substantial evidence.2  Nader v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 87 So. 3d 712, 723 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995)); Broward Cty. v. G.B.V. Int’l, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838, 843 (Fla. 2001) (quoting City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982)).  The second-tier certiorari review is more narrowly limited to (1) whether the lower tribunal afforded procedural due process and (2) whether the lower tribunal applied the correct law.  Heggs, 658 So. 2d at 530.
2.  It is important to distinguish the functions of the common law writ of certiorari and first-tier certiorari review.  The common law writ of certiorari allows an upper court to direct a lower tribunal to inform the upper court of the events below in a pending case so that the upper court can review the proceedings for regularity.  Broward Cty. v. G.B.V. Int’l, Ltd., 787 So. 2d 838, 842 (Fla. 2001).

Further, “[t]he [common law] writ functions as a safety net and gives the upper court the prerogative to reach down and halt a miscarriage of justice where no other remedy exists.”  Id.  This discretionary common law writ is not intended to redress mere legal error, but rather to fill the gaps between direct appeal and other prerogative writs.  Id.  This Court has emphasized that the common law writ functions as an extraordinary remedy, not as a second appeal.  Id.  In contrast, first-tier certiorari review is not a discretionary writ, but a matter of right more similar to a plenary appeal.  Id. at 843.

This Court has deferred to the findings of an agency fact-finder in the context of zoning and policy determinations, as the agency fact-finder in theory has the requisite experience, skill, and perspective to adequately adjudicate specialized proceedings.  See Dusseau, 794 So. 2d at 1276.  In the spirit of deferring to the agency fact-finder in some special cases, this Court has further concluded that when determining whether the administrative decision was founded on competent, substantial evidence, the circuit court may only look for facts in the record that support the agency fact-finder’s conclusions.  See, e.g., G.B.V. Int’l, 787 So. 2d at 845 (concerning review of a zoning decision); Dusseau, 794 So. 2d at 1275-76 (also zoning); Florida Power & Light Co. v. City of Dania, 761 So. 2d 1089, 1093 (Fla. 2000) (also zoning); Educ. Dev. Ctr., Inc. v. City of W. Palm Beach Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 541 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1989) (also zoning); De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912, 916 (Fla. 1957) (concerning removal of an employee of the Duval County School Board).

However, this Court and others have voiced concerns with fairness and due process specifically in the context of hearings held before Department hearing officers under section 322.2615.  See, e.g., Hernandez, 74 So. 3d at 1079 (stating that a petitioner seeking review of a license suspension under section 322.2615 must be afforded reasonable notice and meaningful review of the lawfulness of the suspension); Forth v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 148 So. 3d 781,
782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (quashing the circuit court’s decision to remand to the Department after it was found that the hearing officer was not impartial); Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Griffin, 909 So. 2d 538, 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“While we see no constitutional infirmity in non-lawyers serving as hearing officers under section 322.2615, we do strongly caution those hearing officers that they must take extraordinary care to be as impartial and neutral as the members of the judiciary are required to be.”); Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety v. Dean, 662 So. 2d 371, 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), cause dismissed, 667 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1996) (“The frequency with which conscientious trial judges of this state issue decisions that have the effect of providing more procedural safeguards to licensees in these revocation hearings suggests a continuing concern about the fairness of this statutory procedure.”); Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Stewart, 625 So. 2d 123, 124 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (reasoning that although the procedure under section 322.2615 is expeditious and facially valid, “[l]ower courts may find, under the facts of a specific case, that a suspendee’s rights have not been respected”).  Today, we address those concerns.

The substance of cases that involve special issues of zoning or policy decisions greatly differ from those that involve license suspensions for DUI.  A court conducting section 322.2615 first-tier certiorari review faces constitutional questions that do not normally arise in other administrative review settings.  Every case involving a license suspension contains a Fourth Amendment analysis of whether there was reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle or probable cause to believe that the driver was in physical control of the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.  § 322.2615(7)(b)1.  With that, first-tier review under this particular statute demands a close review of the factual record to determine whether the hearing officer’s findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence and whether the essential requirements of the law were applied.  Nader, 87 So. 3d at 723.  Some consideration of the evidence is inescapable in the competent, substantial evidence determination.  These are legal questions that call for an unbiased review, rather than being solely left to the discretion of a hearing officer who is actually employed by the Department.  While a policy that provides deference to the agency fact-finder may be appropriate in special areas such as zoning or policy decisions, which involve concepts that require a certain level of expertise that can be provided by a nonlawyer, the same does not hold true for the questions of constitutional law that arise under section 322.2615.  It is no wonder, then, that the Legislature created a statute to tailor review for this narrow situation.

The kind of evidence presented in the context of a license suspension hearing is also distinguishable from that presented in the context of zoning or policy decisions.  With the advancement of technology, video evidence has become increasingly prevalent in the arena of law enforcement.

Officers are now equipped with dashboard and body cameras to record traffic incidents.  Whereas prior to the development of this technology officers were limited to what their human memory could recall along with limited reports, an officer can now revisit the event without the distractions or stress that may arise when one is in the present moment.  Unlike testimonial evidence based on a written report, the objective nature of video evidence allows it to be viewed by the Article V judicial officer on first-tier certiorari without the need for interpretations of the hearing officer.

We respect the authority and expertise of law enforcement officers, and thus rely on an officer’s memory when necessary.  But we would be remiss if we failed to acknowledge that at times, an Every case involving a license suspension contains a Fourth Amendment analysis of whether there was reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle or probable cause to believe that the driver was in physical control of the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.  This is the reality of human imperfection; we cannot expect officers to retain information as if he or she were a computer.  Therefore, a judge who has the benefit of reviewing objective and neutral video evidence along with officer testimony cannot be expected to ignore that video evidence simply because it totally contradicts the officer’s recollection.  Such a standard would produce an absurd result.  Yet, the reasoning of the Department and the dissent would require exactly that.
 We disagree with the First District that the circuit court’s refusal to accept the officer’s testimony as competent, substantial evidence constituted a reweighing
of the evidence.  Notably, in another case involving section 322.2615 review, the First District concluded that documents that are hopelessly in conflict could not amount to competent, substantial evidence.  Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Trimble, 821 So. 2d 1084, 1086 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).  Here, not only is the evidence hopelessly in conflict, but the circuit court had the benefit of having objective and neutral video evidence available for review of the actual event, as opposed to two conflicting documents that appear equally reliable.  We will not ask circuit courts conducting license suspension review to ignore this benefit.
We find the dissenting opinion of Judge Van Nortwick below to be far more compatible with the law of legal review under these facts.  Relying on this Court’s opinion in Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Fla. 1981), Judge Van Nortwick aptly pointed out that the weight and sufficiency of evidence are two separate concepts.  Specifically, sufficiency tests the adequacy and credibility of the evidence, whereas weight refers to the balance of the evidence.  See Wiggins, 151 So. 3d at 476 (Van Nortwick, J., dissenting).  In the case before us, the officer’s testimony that there was reasonable suspicion to stop Wiggins is flatly contradicted and refuted by video evidence of record.  Contrary to the officer’s testimony, the video indicates that Wiggins did not veer out of his lane, did not weave within his lane, did not brake erratically, did not make a wide turn, or do anything else to elicit reasonable suspicion.  The Department contends that the circuit court
reweighed the evidence in concluding that the video refuted the testimony of the officer.  We disagree.  The circuit judge here did not engage in a reweighing of the evidence, but rather, determined that the contradicted testimony of the officer was not sufficient to amount to competent, substantial evidence.    
Evidence that is confirmed untruthful or nonexistent is not competent, substantial evidence.  Competent, substantial evidence must be reasonable and logical.  Gonci v. Panelfab Prods., Inc., 179 So. 2d 856, 858 (Fla. 1965).  It follows that a competent, substantial evidence analysis demands an honest look at the evidence available.  Otherwise, we are asking judges to simply parrot the findings of the hearing officer, thus reducing the task of a constitutional judge to providing a predetermined stamp of approval.  To hold that a judge on first-tier certiorari review must accept testimony that, as here, is clearly contradicted and totally refuted by objective video evidence, would be an injustice to Florida drivers.  The law under section 322.2615 is not designed to protect the decision of the hearing officer, but to preserve due process and justice.  The Legislature clearly intended that the circuit court conduct a meaningful review of the record.  Whether a right or a privilege, driving is no doubt an important facet in the lives of Florida citizens.  See Hernandez, 74 So. 3d at 1078 (noting that regardless of whether driving is a right or a privilege, “the loss of a driver’s license is most definitely an extreme hardship”).  The law is designed and intended to protect that significant interest,
not exploit it.  Had the evidence in conflict been merely documentary or testimonial, as we often see in the context of other administrative hearings, perhaps more deference could be afforded to the hearing officer.  In the context of section 322.2615 first-tier certiorari, however, objective and neutral video evidence is often available to confirm the true facts.
We do not condone drunk driving by any means, but we cannot encourage application of our laws in a manner that upholds stops without reasonable suspicion.  Here, the Department asks us to stretch our imaginations to a situation where the officer would have reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop, even though there is clear, objective, neutral, and overwhelming video evidence of the opposite.  This would not be a correct application of the law.  Such an interpretation of the law would allow a hearing officer to arbitrarily choose evidence without an incentive to listen and evaluate for competent, substantial evidence.  This would be an absurd result that we cannot support.
The dissent attempts to improperly transform the decision process and standard of review in this Court in this context into an absolute de novo factual dispute as if we were the circuit court, and we were operating above and beyond the first-tier certiorari review.  This attempted transformation is a foundational flaw which causes the entire dissent to be misdirected.
It is crucial to recognize that there is a true and important distinction between the standards of review conducted by circuit courts upon first-tier certiorari review and that of district courts upon second-tier certiorari review.  This Court has repeatedly explained that upon first-tier certiorari review of an administrative decision, the circuit court is limited to determining (1) whether due process was accorded, (2) whether the essential requirements of the law were observed, and (3) whether the administrative findings and judgment were supported by competent, substantial evidence.  E.g., Nader, 87 So. 3d at 723 (quoting Heggs, 658 So. 2d at 530); G.B.V. Int’l, 787 So. 2d at 843 (quoting Vaillant, 419 So. 2d at 626); Dusseau, 794 So. 2d at 1274 (quoting Vaillant); Florida Power & Light, 761 So. 2d at 1092 (quoting Vaillant); Educ. Dev. Ctr., 541 So. 2d at 108 (quoting Vaillant).  In presenting this three-part standard of review for the circuit court, this Court has further emphasized that “[a]s a case travels up the judicial ladder, review should consistently become narrower, not broader.”  Heggs, 658 So. 2d at 530 (emphasis supplied).  Therefore, when conducting second-tier certiorari review, both the district court and this Court are more narrowly limited to determining whether the circuit court (1) “afforded procedural due process” and (2) “applied the correct law.”  Nader, 87 So. 3d at 717 (citations omitted); see also G.B.V. Int’l, 787 So. 2d at 843 (quoting Vaillant, 419 So. 2d at
626) Dusseau, 794 So. 2d at 1274 (quoting Vaillant); Florida Power & Light, 761 So. 2d at 1092 (quoting Vaillant); Heggs, 658 So. 2d at 530.
We have previously recognized that while both standards are similar in that they require determinations of due process and proper application of the law, a key difference between first-tier review and second-tier review lies in the competent, substantial evidence prong.  Florida Power & Light, 761 So. 2d at 1092-93.  Notably, the competent, substantial evidence prong is absent from the second-tier standard.  Id.  Upon making this observation, this Court in Florida Power & Light explicitly concluded that “the district court on second-tier certiorari review may not review the record to determine whether the agency decision is supported by competent substantial evidence.”  Id. at 1093 (emphasis in original).  Here, the circuit court in the initial step of the review properly performed a competent, substantial evidence analysis and determined that the officer’s testimony did not constitute competent, substantial evidence in light of the conflicting video evidence.
Notwithstanding overwhelming jurisprudence to the contrary, however, the district court below and the dissent here have attempted to incorrectly extend review to the competent, substantial evidence prong and have effectively placed themselves far above the position of a circuit court conducting first-tier review.  This amounts to absolute de novo review, which necessarily violates the limited,
two-pronged standard of review required by courts conducting second-tier review.  See G.B.V. Int’l, 787 So. 2d at 845 (explaining that the district court is limited to a two-pronged standard of review, not de novo review).
Additionally, with the expanded development of technology and the very concerning societal experiences, the use of and request for real-time video of government-citizen confrontational events have moved consideration beyond governmental words purporting to describe events into a broad, more accurate, fair consideration of the actual events as captured on video.  Even if it were proper to become engaged in a factual dispute, which it is not on this second-tier review, the dissent would conclude that mere words of the government are sacrosanct and can be used to punish citizens even where totally contradicted by the actual facts captured on video.  The dissent presents an approach which is the antithesis of a fair and reasonable system.  A government system that would punish its citizens with the use of false evidence of its officers contradicted by real-time video evidence is a system in danger at best.  
The legal issues presented to this Court and the district court below is whether real-time video of events can operate to render mere verbal descriptions of purported events to be not “competent, substantial” evidence when the real-time video of the events contradicts and refutes the verbal description.  It must also be remembered that the government witness conveniently failed to video his actual personal contact with the citizen in this case, contrary to the standing orders of his superiors, and the government witness also admitted that his written report from which he testified was in conflict with the real-time video of the actual events.

Accordingly, we hold that in the limited context of section 322.2615 first-tier review of a DUI license suspension, a circuit court applies the correct law by rejecting officer testimony as being competent, substantial evidence when that testimony is contrary to and refuted by objective real-time video evidence.  That which is found by an Article V judge in this context to be totally refuted by objective, neutral real-time video evidence cannot be deemed competent, substantial evidence.
It is so ordered.
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, and QUINCE, JJ., and PERRY, Senior Justice, concur.
CANADY, J., dissents with an opinion, in which POLSTON, J., concurs.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND IF FILED, DETERMINED.

CANADY, J., dissenting.
I disagree with the majority in two respects.  First, I disagree with the majority’s interpretation of the video and its conclusion that it “flatly contradicted and refuted” Deputy Saunders’ testimony.  Majority op. at 17.  I therefore conclude that the rephrased certified question does not accurately reflect the record before us.  In my view, both Deputy Saunders’ testimony and the video are competent,
substantial evidence that support the hearing officer’s findings.  Second, I would conclude that the circuit court went beyond the limited scope of its first-tier certiorari review, engaged in an improper reweighing of the evidence, and therefore did not apply the correct law.  The First District properly recognized the flaws in the circuit court’s decision.  And contrary to the majority’s assertions, the district court did not conduct “absolute de novo review,” majority op. at 21, in violation of the standard of review applicable in second-tier certiorari reviews.  Contrary to the majority’s view, this is not a case in which video evidence indisputably establishes the controlling facts.  Whatever the proper rule might be in such a case, in this case the district court properly recognized that the circuit court improperly reweighed the evidence presented to the trier of fact.  Accordingly, I would approve the First District’s decision below.
The majority states that the video shows Wiggins “driving totally within the proper lines,” and not “cross[ing] any lines” or “nearly hit[ting] the curb.”  Majority op. at 7-8.  But that is not what the video shows.3  An accurate description of what the video shows was given by Deputy Saunders as he was being examined
 3.  The majority also implies that Wiggins parked normally in the drug store parking lot, but the video shows that Wiggins turned and drove through one row of parking spaces and halfway through another before coming to a stop on an angle half in the parking spaces and half in the lane of traffic for the drug store.  But this is irrelevant to the lawfulness of the stop because it took place after Deputy Saunders initiated the traffic stop.
by Wiggins’ attorney narrating the video as it played during the administrative hearing.  The relevant portions of that exchange—beginning with Deputy Saunders describing his first observation of Wiggins’ vehicle4—were transcribed as follows:
 4.  Contrary to the majority’s suggestion, the video does not show Wiggins’ driving pattern from the time Deputy Saunders first saw the vehicle.  Initially, the vehicle was too far away to be clearly seen on the video.
Q:  I saw them.  Just tell me when you see something.
A:  Like I said, the video doesn’t always show everything I can see as far as at a distance, but he does something in his truck that causes me to think --
 . . . .
Q:  Well, how far was this truck in front of you when you saw the . . . lights?
A:  Yes, his -- his truck’s right there.  I don’t even know at this point what -- if it’s happened or not.  I just know I saw it.
Q:  It looks like it’s a half a mile or so in front of you.
A:  I don’t know about half a mile.  It’s Ashton -- not Ashton Forest.  It’s a neighborhood a couple of hundred yards before this light.
Q:  Are you increasing your speed at this point?
A:  At this point you can see I’ve increased my speed.  You can see his -- potentially his taillights.  I believe there’s another car and I’m trying to catch up to it.
Q:  How fast are you traveling now?
A:  I don’t know.  Like I say, he was doing 30 [mph in a 45-mph zone].  So I didn’t have to go too much faster.
Q:  Was that a traffic violation?
 . . . .
A:  No.  At this point it’s just an observation of impairment.
Q:  Observation of impairment.
A:  You can see him right there.  He’s over on the line, on the fog line starting at the right.
Q:  Yeah.
A:  He’s drifting a little.  Weaving a little bit within his lane.  He’s riding the line right now.  That’s Long Bay right there.
Q:  Yeah.
A:  There’s his brake.
Q:  Okay.  That’s before the intersection?
A:  No, that was actually at the intersection.
Q:  Okay.  Didn’t slow his speed down.  That wasn’t a hard brake and a stop.
A:  I didn’t say he stopped.
 . . . .
Q:  All right.  Well, go ahead and play that through and then tell me where he -- there you go.
A:  See the flashing lights on Long Bay.
Q:  All right.
A:  And you can see he’s in the intersection at the time he does it.
Q:  All right.  It looked like before to me, but go ahead and look.  Flash comes on way before the intersection.
A:  No.  See we’ve already passed the intersection.  It’s a large intersection.
Q:  Did he almost stop or come anywhere close to that?
A:  I didn’t say he almost stopped.  I said he braked hard.
Q:  Braked hard.  Okay.
A:  See how it’s a raised concrete curb on the right.
Q:  Yeah.  How close is he?
A:  Right now he’s not close.  I’m just saying that’s the curb I’m talking about when we talk about it later on.
Q:  Okay.  There’s a green light here.
A:  Yeah.  Then there’s Palmetto.
Q:  He doesn’t do anything unusual or suspicious through the green light?
A:  He’s over almost on the curb right there.
Q:  Well, the curb is right next to the white line, isn’t it, where you said that?
A:  Yes, sir, which would indicate --
Q:  Well, that’s what I’m saying.  The curb --
A:  He’s on the white line.  You asked for me to narrate.  I’m narrating.
Q:  Okay.
A:  Right now he’s riding on the white line as you can see.  He’s almost striking it again.
Q:  Yeah.
A:  Now he’s drifting back over to the left.
Q:  Yeah.
A:  Coming off it.  I believe the next light we’ll come to is Everett.
Q:  Okay.
A:  You see he’s drifting further, coming back to the left a little bit more.
Q:  How far did he --
A:  Now he’s going back right.
Q:  How far did he drift?
A:  I have no idea.  I don’t have a ruler out there on him.  But as you can see he’s --
Q:  Yeah.
A:  -- up over by the curb again.  Now he’s braking again.
Q:  Yeah.
A:  He’s back on the line.  This is where he almost strikes the curb on the opposite side.  It’s sticking out a little bit.  Now he’s come back over.  Now he’s actually over the line.  Now he’s coming back over it.  This is where my mistake is.  I actually changed behind him, getting ready to do a traffic stop, and then he actually switches over.
This is the 2600 block of Blanding.  He’s going to make a left turn at the next light.
Q:  Any weaving that we’ve seen the last quarter of mile that he’s being [sic] driving?
A:  I don’t know the distance but yes, you can see a little bit there.  He’s weaving a little bit.
(Emphasis added.)
Based upon the testimony and evidentiary record that included the video, the hearing officer made the following findings of fact:
On August 19, 2011, at approximately 2:10 a.m. Deputy J.C. Saunders of the Clay County Sheriff’s Office observed a vehicle swerving within the lane, almost striking the right side curb on several occasions, and then braking erratically for no apparent reason.  He also paced the vehicle and determined that it was traveling 30 MPH in
a 45-MPH zone.  Suspecting that the driver might be impaired, Deputy Saunders conducted a traffic stop.
As a result, the hearing officer concluded that the stop was lawful because Deputy Saunders had a reasonable suspicion that Wiggins was driving while impaired.
What Deputy Saunders described in his narration can be seen on the video.  Wiggins was not driving within the proper lines but was repeatedly driving on or over the fog line, nearly hit the curb on multiple occasions, and was drifting within his lane.  The video shows that Deputy Saunders observed this driving pattern for several minutes before initiating a traffic stop.  The video also clearly shows that just prior to the initiation of the traffic stop, Wiggins passed an opening for a left-turn lane and then slowly drifted over a solid white line into the turn lane before turning left.  Additionally, Deputy Saunders testified and wrote in his report that Wiggins was driving 30 mph in a 45-mph zone and that these observations occurred at approximately 2:10 a.m.  Under the totality of the circumstances, Deputy Saunders had a well-founded suspicion that Wiggins was impaired—as the hearing officer concluded—and the video, report, and testimony provide competent, substantial evidence to support this conclusion.
The majority criticizes this conclusion, asserting that “when conducting second-tier certiorari review, both the district court and this Court are more narrowly limited to determining whether the circuit court (1) ‘afforded procedural due process’ and (2) ‘applied the correct law.’ ”  Majority op. at 20.  The majority
cites Florida Power & Light Co. v. City of Dania, 761 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 2000), for the proposition that a court conducting “second-tier certiorari review may not review the record to determine whether the agency decision is supported by competent substantial evidence.”  Majority op. at 21 (quoting Florida Power & Light, 761 So. 2d at 1093).  But the majority itself has conducted just such a review of the record in support of its own analysis.  Although the majority states that the “certified question presents a pure question of law,” majority op. at 2, it nonetheless disputes the factual findings made by the hearing officer and conducts its own “de novo” review of the facts based on its interpretation of the “actual video,” see majority op. at 7-8.  The majority correctly recognizes that “[s]ome consideration of the evidence is inescapable in the competent, substantial evidence determination” by the circuit court on first-tier certiorari review.  Majority op. at 15.  Similarly, “[s]ome consideration of the evidence is inescapable” on second tier-certiorari review to determine whether the circuit court applied the correct law.  That does not mean that the court on second-tier certiorari review makes an independent de novo decision concerning the hearing officer’s ruling.
I would also conclude that the circuit court engaged in an improper reweighing of the evidence in determining that the video contradicts Deputy Saunders’ report and testimony and therefore did not apply the correct law.  The majority defends the circuit court’s action, stating that because “sufficiency tests
the adequacy and credibility of the evidence, whereas weight refers to the balance of the evidence,” majority op. at 17, the circuit court “did not engage in a reweighing of the evidence, but rather, determined that the contradicted testimony of [Deputy Saunders] was not sufficient to amount to competent, substantial evidence,” majority op. at 18.  I disagree.

This Court has said:

The “weight of the evidence” is the “balance or preponderance of evidence.”  Black’s Law Dictionary 1429 (5th ed. 1979).  It is a determination of the trier of fact that a greater amount of credible evidence supports one side of an issue or cause than the other.  See In re Estate of Brackett, 109 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).

As a general proposition, an appellate court should not retry a case or reweigh conflicting evidence submitted to a jury or other trier of fact.  Rather, the concern on appeal must be whether, after all conflicts in the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom have been resolved in favor of the verdict on appeal, there is substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment.  Legal sufficiency alone, as opposed to evidentiary weight, is the appropriate concern of an appellate tribunal.
Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120, 1123 (Fla. 1981) (footnotes omitted), aff’d, 457 U.S. 31 (1982).  In affirming Tibbs, the United States Supreme Court stated, “A reversal based on the weight of the evidence . . . draws the appellate court into questions of credibility.”  Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 37 (1982).  Here, the circuit court stated that “the arrest and booking report and testimony by Deputy Sanders [sic] would support the findings of the hearing officer.”  But in
discrediting Deputy Saunders’ testimony based on its own interpretation of what the video shows, the circuit court improperly reweighed the evidence.
In Dusseau v. Metropolitan Dade County Board of County Commissioners, 794 So. 2d 1270, 1275 (Fla. 2001), we described the circuit court’s erroneous approach in conducting first-tier certiorari review as follows:

Although the circuit court phrased its reversal in terms of “competent substantial evidence,” the plain language of its order shows that the court in fact reweighed the evidence, at length.  Instead of simply reviewing the Commission’s decision to determine whether it was supported by competent substantial evidence, the court also reviewed the decision to determine whether it was opposed by competent substantial evidence.  The circuit court then substituted its judgment for that of the Commission as to the relative weight of the conflicting evidence.  The circuit court thus usurped the fact-finding authority of the agency.

The circuit court here took the same erroneous approach.  Instead of simply determining whether there was competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the hearing officer’s conclusion that the stop of Wiggins was lawful—which the circuit court conceded that Deputy Saunders’ testimony and report provided—the circuit court applied the wrong law, incorrectly concluded that the video conflicted with Deputy Saunders’ testimony and report, and substituted its judgment for that of the hearing officer as to the relative weight of the supposedly conflicting evidence.
The majority has now decided that Dusseau should not be applied to courts conducting first-tier certiorari review of administrative license suspensions because
section 322.2615 requires a determination of the lawfulness of the stop under the Fourth Amendment, which, the majority asserts, raises “legal questions that call for an unbiased review, rather than solely left to the discretion of a hearing officer who is actually employed by the Department” and “which involve[s] concepts that require a certain level of expertise that can be provided by a nonlawyer, the same does not hold true for the questions of constitutional law that arise under section 322.2615.”  Majority op. at 15.  But there is no dispute that if Wiggins swerved within his lane, almost struck the curb on several occasions, braked erratically, and was traveling 30 mph in a 45-mph zone, the stop was lawful.  The question was whether Wiggins did those things, and making such findings does not require a particular expertise in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

The majority also justifies its rejection of Dusseau in the context of review under section 322.2615 because it views video evidence as “objective and neutral,” which “allows it to be viewed by the Article V judicial officer on first-tier certiorari without the need for interpretations of the hearing officer.”  Majority op. at 16.  But as the First District aptly pointed out,
the quality and context of a video, like that in this case, may not capture or explain the finer nuances that the human eye of a trained (though here relatively inexperienced) DUI officer may perceive.  Which explains why the officer said he picked up on some unusual movement of the vehicle or its taillights at a distance (“a good ways back at that point”) that the camera could not fully capture because the “video isn’t always the best.”

What the officer believed he saw, unless entirely inconsistent with the video, is to be credited.  The officer’s eyes were multi-tasking: watching the road to safely operate the patrol car while intermittently observing the vehicle’s driving pattern.  He may have believed the vehicle hit the fog line at the time, but upon review of the video the vehicle did not drift quite that far—but it drifted nonetheless.  These types of contextual inconsistencies between the video and the officer’s testimony/report are lost by crediting the video to the exclusion of the record as a whole.
Wiggins, 151 So. 3d at 467.  “Unlike the circuit court, the hearing officer could evaluate the credibility of the officer and make a determination, for example, that he was truthful in his explanation of what he saw, and what his report said, regarding the vehicle’s driving pattern.”  Id. at 465.  Thus, the hearing officer had a superior vantage point in evaluating all of the evidence, including the video.  Further, the video—even as interpreted by the circuit court and the majority—does not refute Deputy Saunders’ testimony that Wiggins drove 15 mph below the speed limit at 2:10 a.m., braked erratically, and made some erratic motion when his vehicle first came into Deputy Saunders’ view.

“[J]ust like any other type of evidence, video is subject to conflicting interpretations.”  Robinson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 362, 366 (Ind. 2014).  For example, in Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007), Justice Scalia, writing for a majority of the Court, interpreted a video as showing “a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury,” while Justice Stevens, in dissent, interpreted the same video as “hardly the stuff of Hollywood” and opined that it did not show “any incidents
that could even be remotely characterized as ‘close calls,’ ” id. at 392.  Making a determination of what a video shows is a factual finding that does not require any particular expertise and is therefore entitled to deference by a reviewing court.  See, e.g., State v. Cortez, 482 S.W.3d 176, 181 (Tex. App. 2015) (holding that because it was not easily discernable from a video whether defendant’s tires touched the fog line, the reviewing court was required to defer to the trial court’s interpretation of the events captured on the video), vacated on other grounds, 501 S.W.3d 606, 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016).  This is especially true when the video evidence is considered in conjunction with other evidence by the lower tribunal.  See In re M.K., 114 A.3d 107, 111 n.* (Vt. 2015) (citing cases).
For these reasons, I would approve the well-reasoned opinion of the First District and hold that Dusseau is applicable in the context of first-tier certiorari review under section 322.2615 and that a circuit court applies incorrect law when it reweighs or reevaluates conflicting evidence, rather than simply reviewing the record to determine whether the lower tribunal’s decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence.  I thus would answer the question certified by the First District in the affirmative.  I dissent.
POLSTON, J., concurs.



Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal – Certified Great Public Importance

 First District - Case No. 1D13-2471

 (Duval County)

David M. Robbins and Susan Helen Cohen of Epstein & Robbins, Jacksonville, Florida,

 for Petitioner

Stephen Decatur Hurm, General Counsel, and Jason Helfant, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Lake Worth, Florida,

 for Respondent


Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: February 2, 2017, 2:58 am

How to Survive Gasparilla Pirate Invasion


Gasparilla Tips
Tampa Gasparilla Tips
for Avoiding Arrests
Tampa Police Department (TPD) used to arrest between 200 and 400 people each Gasparilla on alcohol charges. Now many are issued civil citations for violating the open container law which includes a fine of $75 - $450. In 2012, TPD issued 302 open containers violation civil citations. Tampa Police Department also arrested 8 pirates for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and 27 underage drinking pirates.

Believe it or not, it is possible to enjoy the Gasparilla Pirate Invasion without waking up with a criminal record or regretting your own birth. Tampa Police Department (TPD) is on a mission to protect and serve during this years Gasparilla Festivities. As you are walking around you may feel like someone is watching you.. You aren't just paranoid, "Big Brother" is watching. The Tampa Police Department has been using mobile surveillance camera units put in place to help secure the Republican National Convention last year.

Other Coverage of Gasparilla Pirate Invasion


16 Tips For Surviving Gasparilla Piratefest Invasion

www.dui2go.com/2013/01/surviving-gasparilla-pirate-invasion.html



 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User

Jan 30, 2016 - Tampa Police Department (TPD) is on a mission to protect and serve during this yearsGasparilla Festivities. As you are walking around you may feel like someone is watching you.. You aren't just paranoid, "Big Brother" is watching.

Gasparilla Arrests - Updated

www.dui2go.com/2016/01/gasparilla-arrests.html



 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User

Feb 2, 2016 - According to the Hillsborough County Sheriff's records there were few arrests atGasparilla 2016.

Tampa Attorney BUI | Boating Under Influence | Gasparilla Arrest

www.dui2go.com/2011/01/tampa-bui-boating-under-influence.html



 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User

Jan 23, 2014 - Call 813-222-2220. Tampa Attorney BUI | Boating Under Influence | Tampa Lawyer BUI |Gasparilla Arrest. tampa attorney bui.

Gasparilla Arrest or Notice to Appear Get Affordable Help From an ...

www.dui2go.com/2011/01/gasparilla-arrest-or-notice-to-appear.html



 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User

Jan 29, 2016 - Is there a history of arrests at the Gasparilla Pirate Parade? In 2010 there were 5 BUI Boating Under the Influence Arrests. The Police, Sheriff's ...

Gasparilla Wet Zone Map 

www.dui2go.com/2016/01/gasparilla-wet-zone-map-parade.html

 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User

Jan 29, 2016 - Gasparilla Wet Zone Map - Gasparilla Parade Map - Legal Alcohol Zone Map.

Believe it or not, it is possible to enjoy the Gasparilla Pirate Invasion without waking up with a criminal record or regretting your own birth. Tampa Police Department (TPD) is on a mission to protect and serve during this years Gasparilla Festivities. As you are walking around you may feel like someone is watching you.. You aren't just paranoid, "Big Brother" is watching. The Tampa Police Department has been using mobile surveillance camera units put in place to help secure the Republican National Convention last year.

Tampa Police believe the cameras will help to stop fights and find lost children.  American Civil Liberties Union of Florida president Mike Pheneger said,"It sounds like (Tampa Police Chief Jane Castor) wants to use them [the cameras] for a set of problems that haven't materialized in previous Gasparilla parades." The Tampa Police will also use Bobcat Golf Carts, bicycles, Segways, and horses.

So here are some guidelines to follow so you wont need legal representation.

Gasparilla Wet Zone Map 2016
Gasparilla Wet Zone Map
2016
Strictly Enforced By the TPD:
  • Must be 21 or older to consume alcohol
  • Open containers only permitted in designated areas
  • Alcohol may not be consumed from kegs or large vessels
  • Must purchase alcohol from vendors
  • Only cans or plastic bottles permitted; no glass or Styrofoam cups or containers
  • Use port-o-lets and other restroom facilities, no public urination
  • No Fighting
  • No Property damage
  • No Trespassing - the parade goes through residential neighborhoods be respectful of their private property.
  • No nudity or flashing (not even in exchange for beads)
  • No Public intoxication
  • No Driving under the influence
  • No motorized vehicles or bicycles
  • No Weapons
  • No Illegal drugs
  • No coolers
Some Good Ideas:
  • Park Remotely - There will be plenty of parking at Raymond James Stadium with a shuttle to the parade route. There is also parking in the Ybor City Garage and take the street car trolley. Some will park in downtown Tampa and Channelside garages or parking lots.
  • Drink water. Standing outside can dehydrate you and alcohol won't help.
  • Eat before you start drinking.
  • Assign a Designated Driver or plan on taking a taxi home.
  • Don't throw away recyclables look for recycling receptacles.

Source: http://www.tampabay.com/news/police-will-watch-gasparilla-crowd-with-cameras-bought-for-rnc/1270946
Author: Lawyer Assistant
Posted: January 28, 2017, 6:00 am
Florida BUI Boating Under the Influence
Boating Under the Influence
Florida

Boating Under the Influence Video

 

Boating Under the Influence of cocaine and a blood alcohol level of .147 says CNN today. According to the video, Baseball superstar Jose Fernandez was involved in a boat crash in Florida. Coroner reports blood alcohol of .147 and presence of cocaine. No news on who was driving the boat. Two others on the boat were also killed when the boat hit a Florida jetty in the middle of the night.

There is no evidence yet proving who was driving. That is a significant hurdle for families seeking justice in the civil case.






Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: October 29, 2016, 10:09 pm
Refusal of a Breath Test

Refusal of a Breath Test


Below is video from inside a jail where a cop is administering Florida's Implied Consent warning given prior to requesting a suspect to take a breath test on an Intoxilyzer breath machine.

Breath Test Refusal Update


What do police officers do when they are arrested for DUI and asked to take a breath test or perform Field Sobriety Exercises?

We have again found out what cops do when THEY are arrested for DUI. Here is an update from a 2016 article: " In the 2016 arrest report, a Pinellas sheriff's deputy wrote that Green's eyes appeared "glossy" and his balance unsteady. He refused to submit to a field sobriety test or a Breathalyzer test to measure his blood alcohol-level."

In the past ten years, this is one topic of interest to many of our viewers.  The breath test is voluntary, if the arresting officer properly informs suspects of their options. One court ruled that where the cop misinformed a DUI suspect that he would be eligible for hardship license if he submitted to breath test. Cop also told him he would not be eligible if he refused the test.

Due to misinformation, it could not be proven that suspect's decision to submit to test was not influenced by misinformation; state has failed to prove that submission to test was voluntary. Motion to Suppress test results granted. Source: FLW Supp 1703Perd



Refusal of a Breath Test 


When police fail to properly inform suspects of their options under the implied consent law, a defense may be available for DUI  Florida. Under Florida DUI law refusal to submit to a breath, urine, or blood test can be used as admissible as evidence in a DUI criminal case. Let's go behind the scenes and into an interrogation room at a local jail where a DUI cop is informing the suspect of his options.




DUI Video  Courtesy of http://www.DUIFla.com.

Florida Law Requires: "The person shall be told that his or her failure to submit to any lawful test of his or her breath will result in the suspension of the person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 1 year for a first refusal, or for a period of 18 months if the driving privilege of such person has been previously suspended as a result of a refusal to submit to such a test or tests, and shall also be told that if he or she refuses to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath and his or her driving privilege has been previously suspended for a prior refusal to submit to a lawful test of his or her breath, urine, or blood, he or she commits a misdemeanor in addition to any other penalties.

The refusal to submit to a chemical or physical breath test upon the request of a law enforcement officer as provided in this section is admissible into evidence in any criminal proceeding." 316.1932 (1)(a)1.a. (Tests for alcohol, chemical substances, or controlled substances; implied consent; refusal.)
Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: October 19, 2016, 10:05 am

The State Of Florida Department Of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles Bureau Of Administrative Reviews 

Bureau of Administrative Reviews, DHSMV, fl dui administrative hearing, Florida DUI Hearings
Tampa DUI Bureau of Administrative Reviews Office 2814 E. Hillsborough Ave. 33610-4479 


CAUTION: Special Option for First Time DUI Cases


The State Of Florida Department Of Highway Safety And Motor Vehicles Bureau Of Administrative Reviews now allows a Request For Eligibility Review . The program waives the driver's right to challenge the validity of a suspension and will result in a permanent entry of the driving record.. The driving privilege will be limited and there are a few other drawbacks.

With this option selected a driver may stay on the road for business purposes only. Selecting this strategy results in a DUI Suspension that cannot be avoided. Waiver of the suspension hearing, results in the automatic entry on your permanent driving record. The entry will indicate an alcohol related traffic suspension for either refusing to take a breath test or a breath test result over .08.

We have additional information to consider, before making the decision to give up challenging a suspension.

Detailed Information Request For Eligibility Review - Business Purposes Only



Tampa DUI Defense Attorney W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. provides the Bureau of Administrative Reviews office locations as a public service to those who need to fight a DUI over .08 or Refusal to Submit to a Chemical Test Suspension. The Locations for DUI Hearings in Florida, held at the Bureau of Administrative Reviews, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) are listed below. The hearing is usually requested on a special form, with required documentation,  and a filing fee. Failure to make a proper request, within 10 days of a DUI arrest, results in a license suspension.


Before deciding to waive your right to challenge a suspension, carefully consider what a waiver of your rights means. We request and handle these hearings for our Driving Under the Influence clients.

The Form, HSMV 72034 (0512013)  is available by email upon request from our office.

Bureau of Administrative Reviews Office Locations



City Address Zip Code Phone Number
Clearwater 4585 - 140th Avenue, North,
Suite 1002
33762-0000 (727) 507-4405
Daytona
Beach
995 Orange Avenue 32114-4663 (386) 254-3912
Ft. Myers 4048 Evans Avenue, #305 33901-0000 (239) 278-7421
Ft.
Pierce
3223 S. Federal Highway, Suite
#8
34982-8105 (772) 460-3660
Ft.
Walton Beach
115-A Northwest Racetrack Road 32547-1644 (850) 833-9716
Gainesville 2815 NW 13th Street, Suite 302 32609-2861 (352) 955-2030
Jacksonville 7439 Wilson Blvd. 32210-3597 (904) 777-2132
Lauderdale
Lakes
3708 W. Oakland Park Blvd. 33311-0000 (954) 714-3552
Miami 2515 West Flagler Street 33135-1422 (305) 643-7569
Orlando 4101 Clacona Ocoee Road, Suite
#152
32810-4221 (407) 445-5581
Palm Bay 2325 S. Babcock St., Suite B 32901-7121 (321) 984-4810
Panama
City
237 West 15th Street - Lincoln
Center
32401-0000 (850) 872-7747
Pensacola 7282 Plantation Road, Suite #406 32504-6331 (850) 494-5728
Tallahassee 504-A Capital Cr. S. E. 32301-3817 (850) 487-2788
Tampa 2814 E. Hillsborough Ave. 33610-4479 (813) 276-5795
West Palm
Beach
1299 West Lantana Road      33462 (561) 540-1191
Winter
Springs
290 East SR 434 32708-0000 (407) 327-6678

Administrative Hearing Location in Tampa | Florida | DUI Administrative Hearing



DUI Tampa Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Bureau of Administrative Reviews Florida Hearing Office in Hillsborough County, Florida.


Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: October 14, 2016, 2:30 pm
BREAKING NEWS 


DHSMV Bureau of Administrative Reviews Office in Tampa 4902 E 10th Ave Tampa, FL 33605 


DHSMV Bureau of Administrative Reviews Hearing Office Is Now Closed DHSMV Bureau of Administrative Reviews will reopen Wednesday, October 19 at their original location of 2814 East Hillsborough Avenue. 

 From a Well-Informed Local Source: "If you haven’t noticed, the Tampa Field Hearing Office for the Bureau of Administrative Reviews is now closed. They won’t reopen until Wednesday, October 19 at their original location of 2814 East Hillsborough Avenue." "It would seem that the short sightedness of the DHSMV is biting our clients in the rear again. We contacted the Pinellas Field Hearing Office, and it would seem that they had no backup plan to schedule hearings or issue temporary permits to Tampa DUI defendants. After being put on terminal hold for a half hour, my office was advised that the Pinellas Office would see our clients to issue temporary permits. They are not going to schedule appointments for Tampa, but at least we can get something for our clients to drive on."









Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: October 14, 2016, 9:46 am
Hillsborough 813-222-2220 Tampa
Hillsborough 813-222-2220
Hillsborough DUI Lawyer | Attorney
Call 813-222-2220

Hillsborough DUI Attorney - Charges Defended Since 1997.

Serious Charge | Serious Defense
DUI Attorney Hillsborough

DUI charges in Hillsborough County, Florida? DUI Hillsborough Attorney, W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. is standing by to help you, a friend, or a loved one. DUI Hillsborough Lawyer Casey Ebsary is a Hillsborough DUI Attorney who prosecuted DUI charges in County and Circuit Court - Both Misdemeanors and Felony. Now he is on your side. If you have a DUI anywhere in the Tampa Bay Area, then you probably have some questions to ask from a Hillsborough dui lawyer. You can have your questions answered by a former Hillsborough County DUI prosecutor, W. F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. at 813-222-2220.



Casey Ebsary has handled hundreds of Hillsborough D U I cases and knows how to help you with your Hillsborough DUI. He has represented clients in driving under the influence, driving while intoxicated and in other types of civil and criminal cases in many of Florida's counties. He worked for the State of Florida in prosecution (Assistant State Attorney) and defense Assistant Public Defender).

Search Our DUI Hillsborough Website. Search my huge DUI Database for Free - then call me 813-222-2220 .  Hillsborough County DUI Search - Free access for Public, Students, Clients and Attorneys.

We can help you, a friend, or a loved one

Hillsborough County, Florida DUI Attorney


 

Highest Rating by Lawyers.com

Seasoned and Experienced
When you have been arrested for DUI, Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary, Jr. is available to help 813-222-2220. For ten years, each spring, Mr. Ebsary taught the Review and Preparation Course for the Florida Criminal Trial Board Certification Exam.  Mr. Ebsary has been a Member of the Student Education and Admissions to the Bar Committee of the Florida Bar, Chairman of the Criminal Law section of the Hillsborough County Bar Association. Mr. Ebsary received his Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, cum laude from the University of Florida and his Juris Doctor, cum laude from the Stetson University College of Law. Mr. Ebsary is also an Editorial Board Member of the Stetson Law Review.


In addition to being Board Certified by the Florida Bar, Casey Ebsary also has received an AV Rating by the Martindale Hubbell Law directory / Lawyers.com. This is their highest rating and shows that a lawyer has reached the height of professional excellence. AV rated lawyers have usually practiced law for many years, and are recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity.

Defense of a DUI charge can be quite challenging. The main witnesses are generally the police. There is sometimes allegedly scientific evidence from the breath test and/or the medical or legal blood tests being presented against you. The breath test, officer's testimony, and Standard Field Sobriety tests are used to try to present damaging evidence against you.

Check Out Qualifications of an Experienced Lawyer in Tampa, Florida

Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. can defend you against drunk driving charges and other traffic offenses. Drunk Driving is a nasty charge to have on your driving record. Casey can help defend against this charge. Whether you have been arrested, or just need to learn about the law, this site is dedicated to assisting you in finding some answers.


We are available 24 hours a day for a free case evaluation.

Contact a Lawyer in Tampa, Florida

Call 813-222-2220

The Tampa Bay area also includes Pinellas, and Pasco Counties. The Tampa Bay area also includes cities and townships of Tampa, Clearwater, St. Petersburg, Land O Lakes, Largo, Lutz, Temple Terrace, and the winter strawberry capital Plant City, to name a few.

If you refuse to take a breath, blood, or urine test after being arrested, or if results of your breath test were .08% or above, your license will be suspended unless a written demand for an administrative hearing is filed within 10 days after arrest.

Driving Under the Influence can be proven several ways. It can be proven with evidence of impairment of normal faculties or unlawful blood alcohol or breath alcohol level of .08 or above. 
Regardless of how the DUI is proven, when convicted one faces the same penalties. The Driving Under the Influence conviction penalties include: fine, community service, probation, vehicle impoundment, and imprisonment. Hillsborough County Courts sometimes allow defendants to serve their sentences in residential treatment programs for alcohol abuse, drug abuse, alcoholism, and/or addiction.

A fine of $500 to $5,000 and 50 hours of community service is usually imposed. The actual length of imprisonment is determined by the number of DUI convictions and the blood alcohol level and ranges from 6 months to 5 years. The duration that the vehicle is impounded depends on the defendants particular situation.

Serving Hillsborough County Florida and the surrounding counties since 1997.

Hillsborough County Florida DUI Hot Spots

DUI hot spots in the Hillsborough County Florida area. The SP Times reports that in one area, " Town 'N Country, Hillsborough County Sheriff's DUI deputies make sure they monitor that portion of the county every single night." Visit here for help with a Hillsborough DUI case.

The Data also shows the top 3 spots for DUI arrests:
Brandon with 412; Town 'N Country with 226; and New Tampa with 195.

Hillsborough Boating Under the Influence Crackdown

Hillsborough DUI Lawyer reports a Crackdown enforcing BUI this summer by Florida law enforcement in Hillsborough County. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office Marine Unit deputies along with state and federal agencies will be calling the crackdown Operation Dry Water and focus will be upon the detection and enforcement of BUI (boating under the influence) of drugs and/or alcohol. The conviction and penalties are as serious and severe as DUI and can include: arrest, fines, and loss of boating privileges.

Florida DUI Arrest Contest Winners

A recent Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Awards Banquet honoring Florida Highway Patrol Officers with exceptional amounts of DUI arrests recognized many Tampa Bay Area officers.

There were 13 contest winners at the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office (HSCO) who had made more than 100 DUI arrests that year. There were 16 contest winners at the Tampa Police Department (TPD) who got over a hundred DUI arrests in the year. There were others with less and some officers  were recognized with over a 1000 arrests.

100 DUI Arrest Award Winners - Sheriff's Office
• Deputy Jackie Brock
• Deputy Beau Dobson
• Deputy James Glover
• Deputy Carolyn Jolly
• Deputy Carl McCalla
• Deputy Jimmy McDowell
• Deputy Matthew McMurphy
• Deputy Felix Moret
• Deputy Lawrence Morrell
• Deputy Shawn Morrey
• Deputy Kevin Stabins
• Deputy Candace Steinmeir
• Deputy Anthony Watson

1000+ DUI Arrest Awards
• Deputy Jackie Brock
• Deputy Lloyd Hyder
• Deputy Felix Moret
• Deputy Lawrence Morrell
• Deputy Paul Shute
• Deputy Gregory Williams

More Information on Hillsborough County Traffic Crimes

DUI Suspension - DUI Attorney Tampa On Call | 813.222.2220 ...

www.dui2go.com/p/dui-suspension.html

 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Bureau of Administrative Reviews. The suspension occurs upon arrest for DUI over .08 or Refusal to Submit to a Chemical Test.

Breath Test Calculator

www.dui2go.com/p/breath-test.html

 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Online Breath Calculator - Estimates are provided for educational purposes only. Do not use these estimates as a basis for making a decision about drinking or ...

Tampa Hillsborough DUI Checkpoints | Labor Day

www.dui2go.com/2010/09/tampa-hillsborough-dui-checkpoints.html
 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Sep 3, 2010 - Tampa DUI Attorney in Hillsborough County, Florida just received information there will be Three Checkpoints in Three Days! According to law ...

Arrest Records Online

www.dui2go.com/p/records-online.html

 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
You can go here for a quick search of the Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco County Florida County Online Court Criminal Records Databases.

Biography and Qualifications

www.dui2go.com/p/dui-attorney-tampa-home.html

 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Failure to have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to conduct a traffic stop the results in the warrantless search and/or arrest of a driver can result in ...

Hiding Evidence at Hillsborough DUI Central Breath Test Unit

www.dui2go.com/2010/01/hiding-evidence-at-hillsborough-dui.html
 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Jan 2, 2010 - Tampa Hillsborough County DUI Attorney, Lawyer W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary, Jr. contunues to follow efforts by law enforcement to prevent suspects ...

Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: October 14, 2016, 12:06 am
 DUI Citizen's Arrest
What is required for a citizen to make a valid arrest for DUI?

What is required for a citizen to make a valid arrest for DUI?


Sometimes citizens try to detain and arrest driver's to hold them for the Police to arrive. This citizen's arrest  is not always legal and can result in all evidence seized from the Defendant, including the results of any field sobriety exercises and any matters related to the intoxilizer test bring suppressed. The evidence can be thrown out an the DUI conviction can be avoided. The standard for a valid citizen arrest is set forth in McAnnis v. State, 386 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The crime of DUI constitutes a breach of peace, for which a citizen who has observed said breach can effect a citizen's arrest.

The standard for a valid citizen's arrest is as follows:






(1) A purpose or intention to effect an arrest under a real or pretended authority;



(2) an actual or constructive seizure or detention of the person to be arrested by a person having present power to control the person arrested;

(3) a communication by the arresting officer to the person whose arrest is sought, of an intention or purpose then and there to effect an arrest; and 

(4) an understanding by the person whose arrest is sought that it is the intention of the arresting officer then and there to arrest and detain him. Citing Melton v. State, 75 So.2d 291, 294 (Fla. 1954) (citation omitted). State v. Parnell, 221 So.2d 129 (Fla.1969); Bey v. State, 355 So.2d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

Complete Text of Recent DUI Citizen's Arrest Opinion



STATE OF FLORIDA vs. XXXXXXX, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Flagler County. Case No. 2015 CT 1083. June 22, 2016. D. Melissa Moore Stens, Judge. Counsel: G. Kipling Miller, for Defendant.


ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

THIS MATTER came to be heard on the Motion to Suppress. The Court, having heard testimony from the arresting officer, Deputy William Nunziato, and witness John Moscowitz, and having heard argument from both Counsel for the State and the Defendant, the Court makes the following findings of fact:

1. John Moscowitz testified that he was traveling on US1 northbound, when he observed a small red vehicle coming southbound in his lane of travel. Mr. Moscowitz testified that he maneuvered out of the lane to avoid a collision, and then made a U-turn at the next available location to get emergency personnel assistance. Another vehicle was able to slow the small red vehicle and get it to a stop on US1 in the northbound lanes facing southbound when Mr. Moscowitz came upon the vehicle again.

2. When Mr. Moscowitz approached the vehicle, he observed a female in the driver's seat conscious and appearing remorseful in his words. He was able to request that she get her vehicle off the roadway and shut the vehicle off. Mr. Moscowitz testified that the female initially stayed in her vehicle and did not turn it off. He then asked for the keys to avoid her putting the vehicle back in gear, and he placed the keys on top of the roof of the vehicle.

3. Mr. Moscowitz, being a first responder by trade, inquired as to medical needs of the driver, as he witnessed her unsteady on her feet, almost to the point of falling. He directed her to sit in the passenger seat of the vehicle to await on duty first responders. Mr. Moscowitz waited until police arrived and conveyed what he witnessed to them.

4. Deputy William Nunziato testified that he was on duty working DUI patrol on the evening of December 23, 2015 when he was dispatched to US1 near Eagle Hawk Estates regarding a possible DUI.

5. Deputy Nunziato testified that when he responded to the area, he observed a red two door Mercedes facing southbound in the northbound lanes of US1 on the left shoulder. There were other police cars and other vehicles present. The female was outside of the passenger side of the vehicle.

6. Deputy Nunziato confirmed that he never witnessed her driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle.

7. It is this sequence of events on which the Defendant bases her Motion to Suppress.

8. Both the State and Defense agree that the only justification for the arrest of the Defendant would be a citizen arrest. Likewise, both the State and Defense agree that the crime of DUI constitutes a breach of peace, for which a citizen who has observed said breach can effect a citizen's arrest. See Edwards v. State, 462 So.2d 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); State v. Furr, 723 So.2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)[23 Fla. L. Weekly D2514a]; Steiner v. State, 690 So.2d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)[22 Fla. L. Weekly D850a].

9. The standard for a valid citizen arrest is set forth in McAnnis v. State, 386 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). These are as follows:

(1) A purpose or intention to effect an arrest under a real or pretended authority;
(2) an actual or constructive seizure or detention of the person to be arrested by a person having present power to control the person arrested; 
(3) a communication by the arresting officer to the person whose arrest is sought, of an intention or purpose then and there to effect an arrest; and 
(4) an understanding by the person whose arrest is sought that it is the intention of the arresting officer then and there to arrest and detain him.

Citing Melton v. State, 75 So.2d 291, 294 (Fla. 1954) (citation omitted). State v. Parnell, 221 So.2d 129 (Fla.1969); Bey v. State, 355 So.2d 850 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

10. In the instant case, it is clear that Mr. Moscowitz intended to “detain” the female so that she could be further evaluated by medical and law enforcement personnel. However, whether he intended to “arrest” her for DUI is unclear. Thus, the first, third, and fourth prongs of the McAnnis test are not met by the testimony presented. See also State v. Nancy Jones, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 986a (Fla. Eighteenth Judicial Circuit February 2015); State v. Guy Lathrop, unpublished Seventh Judicial Circuit opinion, (CTC03-51297MMAES May 21, 2004).

Based upon the above findings of fact, it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

The Defendant's Motion to Suppress is GRANTED. All evidence seized from the Defendant DIANE XXXXXXX, including the results of any field sobriety exercises and any matters related to the intoxilizer test are suppressed.

Florida Law Weekly summarized the case as follows:

"Officers did not have probable cause to arrest defendant for DUI where officers observed defendant standing beside vehicle parked in wrong direction on side of highway but did not observe her driving or in actual physical control of vehicle"

"Off-duty first responder who observed defendant driving wrong way on highway, took away her vehicle keys when she came to stop, and directed her to sit in passenger seat to await on-duty first responders did not effect citizen's arrest where it is clear that he intended to detain defendant so that she could be evaluated by medical and law enforcement personnel, but it is not clear whether he intended to arrest defendant for DUI"

"Results of field sobriety exercises and any matters related to breath test are suppressed"

Source: Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2404LEDF
Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: September 27, 2016, 9:29 pm
Hillsborough DUI, Pinellas DUI, Pasco DUI, Conviction Rate

"Hillsborough County has 

the highest conviction rate"


We recently obtained statistics for conviction of driving under the influence in the major counties in the Tampa Bay area. We considered Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties. 

We thought we would ask three questions: 

  • First, which county has the highest conviction rate?  
  • Second, which county has the most DUI charges in the Bay Area? 
  • Third, which county dismissed the most DUI charges?


Which Tampa Bay Area county has the 

highest conviction rate?



Hillsborough DUI Conviction Rate
As for which county has the highest conviction rate. In an election year, this is an important statistic, because Hillsborough County with a hotly contested race for the state attorney's office has the highest DUI conviction rate at 79.6%. Pinellas County's DUI conviction rate was 79.3%. Pasco County brought up the rear with only a 62.1% conviction rate.

Which county has the most DUI charges 

in the Tampa Bay Area?

 

Which county has the most DUI charges?
As for which county has the most DUI charges.  Hillsborough County had the highest number of DUI charges in 2015 with 4,111 charges.  The Florida Highway Patrol had 652 charges in Hillsborough County while the local police departments had 1722 and the Sheriff's Office had 1731 . 

Second in the number of bay area criminal cases for DUI was Pinellas County which had 3355 DUI charges.  The total number of DUI charges for the Three Counties in this study was 8623.


Which county  in the Tampa Bay Area 

Dismissed the most DUI charges?


Pasco County Florida dismissed the most DUI charges. Nearly 1 in every 10 charges are dismissed. There was an average conviction rate of 77.15% for drivers charged with driving under the influence in the three counties we studied. 

So on average  the odds of getting a DUI charge dismissed or reduced to a lesser charge is about one in four. We have included the raw data for you to study. That is available at this link for the Tampa Bay DUI statistics. We have also included a summary in the chart below.  

What are your thoughts on conviction rates for DUI in the Tampa Bay area?  

"the odds of getting a DUI charge dismissed or  reduced to a 
lesser charge is about one in four"

Here are the data we used to calculate Tampa Bay DUI Convictions by the Numbers. The source of the data was https://services.flhsmv.gov/SpecialtyPlates/UniformTrafficCitationReport


Summary of Data in Tampa Bay DUI Convictions by the Numbers Study


County PopulationDUI 
Charges
DUI
per
capita
Dismissed
DUI
Charges
Percent
charges dismissed
Convictions Conviction
Rate
Hillsborough   1,325,563 4111 0.31% 90 2.19% 3273 79.62%
Pasco      487,588 1157 0.24% 111 9.59% 719 62.14%
Pinellas      944,971 3355 0.36% 25 0.75% 2661 79.31%
Tri-County Total   2,758,122 8623 0.31% 226 2.62% 6653 77.15%

Complete Data Used in this Driving Under the Influence Study


Complete Data Used in this Driving Under the Influence Study

Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: September 23, 2016, 11:42 pm

Michael Phelps - Miracles Happen - From Addiction to Gold Medals



The Recovery of Michael Phelps from 2 DUI charges to "Greatest Olympian of All Time" was a long journey that began with his first DUI charge in 2004. The miracle began Less than 2 years before his historic run at the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio.


Michael's recovery is the real story. According to NBC, in September 2014 Michael entered rehab (The Meadows) and received a conviction for his second drunken driving incident. Michael had to complete a USA Swimming suspension that eliminated him from all competitions for six months.

Michael Phelps DUI and Recovery on Twitter



Michael was direct and to the point in the second DUI arrest and announced his efforts to recover live on his Twitter Account.

He completed 45 days in an undisclosed rehab. While in treatment Michael Phelps reunited with his father. Michael's family split when he was 9 years-old. Michael had "lost touch" with his Dad as his swimming career exploded. Sports Illustrated reported that Phelps invited his father Fred to visit him at the rehab treatment center in 2014.

Michael Phelps - The First DUI



Michael Phelps, Michael Phelps First DUI
Michael Phelps First DUI
According to Swimming World, "Michael Phelps, 19, can breathe a little easier tonight after he was sentenced to 18 months' probation after pleading guilty to driving while impaired in a Salisbury, Maryland, court this afternoon." The swimming media reported, "The offense carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail plus a $1,000 fine." 

Before this first case Michael Phelps had a spotless record. "Judge Lloyd O. Whitehead granted Phelps probation before judgment, which will allow the 19 year-old to have his record expunged if he abides by the terms of his probation. " Many states, including Florida, do not allow this type of sentence.



Michael Phelps - The Second DUI



Michael Phelps, Michael Phelps Second DUI
Michael Phelps Second DUI
The Second DUI occurred in 2014 less than 2 years before his historic run at the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio. Again Swimming World reported, "the state of Maryland would only view today’s DUI as a second offense if it took place less than five years after the first incident. Phelps’ first DUI took place almost 10 years ago, in November 2004, and he was sentenced to 18 months probation and community service." 

The breath test was a .14 percent. He was stopped for speeding away from a Baltimore Casino. The Judge sentenced Michael Phelps to 18 months Probation.

"The maximum penalty for first-time DUI offenders in Maryland is up to one year in jail and up to $1,000 in fines. Phelps could also have his license suspended for a minimum of six months. Phelps will also face penalties and fines for excessive speeding, and the punishment for that varies greatly."


Footnote: Michael Phelps and the Bong


After Michael's initial Olympic appearance, a 2009 photo showed Phelps with a bong. Phelps called it  "a big mistake." "It was an awful judgment. And, really, the people I hurt is my family, clearly, my friends, the close people around me and most importantly, the fans," Phelps told NBC News' Matt Lauer. Phelps lost a huge sponsorship from Kelloggs and got a 3 month ban from swimming.

Michael Phelps DUI Video




Michael Phelps DUI Video Clips.

Other Sources:

 NBCNews



Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: August 14, 2016, 11:43 pm
DUI Dade City DUI Lawyer 813-222-2220 Call Casey Ebsary and discuss how he can help you, a friend, or a loved one.

Dade City DUI Attorney


Help for You, a Friend, or Loved One


DUI in Dade City? 

Call 813-222-2220

The Story of a Typical Dade City DUI Traffic Stop




Most DUI cases in rural Pasco County occuring near Dade City, Florida are initiated by the Pasco County Sheriff's Office. There are two courthouses in Pasco County one is in located in New Port Richey Florida. I was a assistant public defender there for some time. Subsequently, I was hired by another state attorney's office to become a DUI Prosecutor. Almost 20 years ago I switched sides.




The cases also can be heard in Pasco County's other courthouse in Dade City Florida. This is the other Courthouse that handles criminal cases in Pasco County. It is not uncommon for a DUI case to begin with a traffic stop for an otherwise unimportant traffic infraction. Traffic tickets for speeding Lane violations, red light violations, failure to have a proper registered vehicle, are not at all uncommon in these types of cases. 

Typically the officer will appear to perform an investigation involving field sobriety exercises. Almost everybody tends to fail these. That's because these tests are designed to be failed. Next, the officer will ask the driver to submit to a chemical test. Typically, this is a breath test. Under limited circumstances, the officer can request a breath test and a blood test. A blood or breath result above .08 results in a license suspension. Refusal to submit to such a test can result in an even longer suspension. In any event these suspensions must be challenged within 10 days of the arrest.

DUI Dade City Florida Attorney, DUI Dade City, Dade City, Dade City DUI, Dade City DUI refusal, Dade City DUI Lawyer, Dade City DUI Attorney, Dade City Drunk Driving Lawyer, Dade City Drunk Driving Attorney

Checklist for Hiring a DUI Attorney 


Is the Lawyer Board Certified?

Is the Lawyer Experienced?

Will you receive Personal Attention?

Is the Lawyer a Former DUI Prosecutor?





Dade City DUI Video







Law Office of W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. is located here on Google+ 








Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: August 7, 2016, 1:52 pm
Temple Terrace, DUI Temple Terrace

DUI Temple Terrace Florida Defense Attorney

Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer
(813) 222-2220





If you have been charged with or accused of DUI in this small Florida town, then you are not alone. With Hillsborough River flowing through this community, it is also possible to have a BUI - Boating Under the Influence charge. With sky-rocketing insurance premiums, loss of a driver's license and possible jail time, you could use some help to fight back from a Former Temple Terrace, Florida DUI Prosecutor.

Temple Terrace DUI Officers sometimes use Unmarked Vehicles to Patrol the city. The Temple Terrace Police Department has a zero-tolerance DUI policy and aggressively enforces the state’s DUI traffic laws. You can review the police department's activities here. The city is also known for an unruly strtch of roadway on 56th Street where there are nearly a dozen "no u-turn" signs.



"DUI is serious charge to have on your driving record. 
You Need a Serious Defense. 
I can help."


Where Will the Court Date be Set? 

DUI Court Locations


DUI and other Criminal misdemeanor charges that occur in Temple Terrace, Hillsborough County, Florida are assigned to the main criminal courthouse in downtown Tampa, Florida.






How can I get a Copy of the Evidence the Cops Collected?


The police made reports and made have created a video recording of your arrest. You may wonder, "How can I get a Copy of the Evidence the Cops Collected?" The answer is hire a competent DUI defense attorney like W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr., who was an Assistant State Attorney / DUI Prosecutor in the Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office. Casey will make a request for that evidence and we can review the facts and circumstances of your case to build a defense. 

How do I set a Court Date?


Sometimes court dates are automatically set at the time of your arrest. However, sometimes police fail to set a court date. If a court date is set and missed, an arrest warrant may be issued and the driver's license may be suspended. It is prudent to get help in setting and confirming a court date. Many times an DUI defense attorney can attend most, if not all court hearings for you without the need to return to Florida or attend hearings at the Hillsborough County Courthouse.

How do I Choose the Best DUI Defense Attorney in Temple Terrace Florida?


It is tough to choose the Best DUI Defense Attorney in Temple Terrace Florida. So how do you do it?

Ask some tough questions like:

Who is the lawyer who will actually be working with me? Many attorneys hand the case off to someone else. Someone you never met and might not like.

What are the lawyer's credentials? Choose a Board Certified expert.

Has that attorney prosecuted and defended hundreds of DUI cases, with jury trial verdicts?

Does the lawyer have experience with Temple Terrace Florida DUI cases like mine?

What is the cost of Casey defending (or not defending) your case?

Temple Terrace DUI Attorney Video





About Temple Terrace DUI Lawyer W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr.


Casey has defended driving under the influence clients for over 20 years and is a former DUI Prosecutor. Casey is totally familiar with the Florida State DUI laws. He will listen to your situation and plainly explain how the law applies and what needs to be done. Since the consequences of a DUI conviction are emotionally devastating, getting a good defense from a compassionate ally is important. 

Temple Terrace DUI Defense Attorney

Board Certified in Criminal Trial Law


Casey is Board Certified in Criminal Trial Law by the Florida Bar. Fewer than one-half of one-percent of Florida's attorneys have qualified for this distinction. Click on the Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Icon / Symbol to review Casey's qualifications.

Temple Terrace Florida DUI Defense Lawyer,  W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. has an office located just minutes away from the courthouse in Tampa, Florida where the case will be prosecuted.



Temple Terrace, FL DUI Lawyer
"Highest Possible Rating in
Both Legal Ability & Ethical Standards. . . ."

AV Highest Rated


W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. was awarded a Rating of AV Preeminent. The AV Preeminent Rating is perhaps the pinnacle of Professional excellence earned through a strenuous Peer review Rating process that is managed and monitored by the world's most trusted resource, Martindale Hubbell / Lawyers.com.

Casey has been AV rated, the highest ranking given by Lawyers.com, for a number years since entering private practice.

AV Rated - The prestigious award from Martindale Hubbell / Lawyers.com states, in part, that the award is the "Highest Possible Rating in Both Legal Ability & Ethical Standards. . . ." The ratings body states: "AV® Preeminent™ . . . An AV® certification mark is a significant rating accomplishment - a testament to the fact that a Casey's peers rank at the highest level of professional excellence."

Search Casey’s Huge Temple Terrace Florida DUI Defense Lawyer Information Database for Free


Search Casey’s Huge Temple Terrace Florida DUI Database for Free


If you do not find what you are looking for, call us at 813-222-2220.


DUI Temple Terrace, Temple Terrace, Temple Terrace DUI, Temple Terrace Florida Defense Lawyer


DUI Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer near Temple Terrace Florida Defense Lawyer,  W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr.  on Twitter


Casey is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer with diverse criminal litigation experience. Main Office Tampa Conveniently Located:

Law Office of W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary Jr
2102 W Cleveland St
Tampa, Florida 33606
(813) 222-2220
centrallaw@centrallaw.com

Casey is Licensed in Florida, and the Federal Middle District of Florida.

Street View of  DUI Defense Lawyer near Temple Terrace FL





Read Our Reviews and
View Larger Map of DUI Temple Terrace
Attorney Defense Lawyer
Near Temple Terrace Florida





More Information on a Temple Terrace DUI Lawyer


W. F."Casey" Ebsary, Jr., former prosecutor and Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer has been attorney of record in hundreds of DUI cases. He has represented clients in driving under the influence (DUI) and driving while intoxicated (DWI) cases in many Florida counties. He is a former Assistant State Attorney (Prosecutor) and a former Assistant Public Defender. He has litigation experience which includes many DUI cases in Temple Terrace, Florida. Casey knows the area well since he is a lifelong resident of the area.

As you may already know, Casey is AV rated by the Martindale Hubbell Directory. That is the highest rating. The rating shows that a lawyer has reached the height of professional excellence. AV rated lawyers have usually practiced law for many years, and are recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity. 

W. F."Casey" Ebsary, Jr. is also a distinguished author and lecturer. He has been a legal analyst on radio and TV. His primary office is in downtown Tampa Florida in Hillsborough County.


Previous Coverage of Temple Terrace, Florida


Temple Terrace DUI Checkpoint | Tip - DUI Attorney Tampa On Call

www.dui2go.com/2011/02/temple-terrace-dui-checkpoint.html
 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Feb 9, 2011 - Tampa DUI Lawyer, who helps people in Temple Terrace calls it a DUI Checkpoint / Roadblock. We have a tip that Law Enforcement Agencies ...

DUI Checkpoint | Florida Temple Terrace - DUI Attorney Tampa On Call

www.dui2go.com/2011/08/dui-checkpoint-florida-temple-terrace.html
 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Aug 11, 2011 - DUI Attorney / Lawyer just obtained a document from the Temple Terrace, Florida Police Department. There will be a DUI Driving Under the ...

DUI Attorney Tampa On Call | 813.222.2220 | Hillsborough County FL

www.dui2go.com/
Oct 29, 2016 - DUI Temple Terrace Florida Defense Attorney. Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer. (813) 222-2220. If you have been charged with or ...

Contact Temple Terrace DUI Attorney W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr. by phone at 813-222-2220.

Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer
W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr.
(813) 222-2220
                       
Temple Terrace DUI Attorney
Temple Terrace, Florida DUI
Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: August 6, 2016, 1:12 am

DUI Plant City Florida Affordable Defense


Experienced Help for DUI charges in Plant City Florida from a Former Plant City DUI Prosecutor

Plant City Florida Defense Lawyer, W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr.

Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer


(813) 222-2220



Where will my DUI Case be heard?


Plant City Florida DUI Defendants can get affordable help from Former Prosecutor, W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. Casey was an Assistant State Attorney / Prosecutor in the Hillsborough County, Florida State Attorney's Branch Office located at 
302 North Michigan AvenuePlant CityFlorida
. Persons charged with DUI or DWI or BUI in Plant CityFlorida can call me for help when DUI troubles arise at 813-222-2220.


DUI and other Criminal misdemeanor charges that occur in Eastern Hillsborough County are assigned to the Plant City Branch Courthouse. Cases from Valrico and Brandon can also be assigned to the branch courthouse in Plant City 

Board Certified Criminal Trial Specialist, available to help with DUI charges assigned to the Plant City Division. DUI is a serious charge to have on your driving record - I can help. Casey is Board Certified in Criminal Trial Law by the Florida Bar Board of Legal Specialization and Education. Less than 1/2 of 1 percent of Florida 's lawyers have qualified for this distinction. 

Experienced Help for DUI charges in Plant City Florida | (813) 222-2220 - Attorney is Board Certified in Criminal Trial Law by the Florida Bar Board of Legal Specialization and Education. Less than 1/2 of 1 percent of Florida's lawyers have qualified for this distinction.

W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. has once again been awarded a Rating of AV Preeminent. The AV Preeminent Rating is considered the pinnacle of Professional excellence earned through a strenuous Peer review Rating process that is managed and monitored by the world's most trusted resource, Martindale Hubbell. The award states, in part, that the award is the "Highest Possible Rating in Both Legal Ability & Ethical Standards. . . ." The ratings body states: "AV® Preeminent™ (4.5 - 5.0) - An AV® certification mark is a significant rating accomplishment - a testament to the fact that a lawyer's peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence."Help is available from a former DUI Prosecutor. Call me and tell me your story. Persons charged with DUI or DWI or BUI inPlant CityFlorida have a resource for help when DUI troubles arise. Casey is also a former Plant City DUI Prosecutor.

Board Certified Criminal Trial Specialist, W.F. ''Casey' Ebsary Jr. knows that DUI is serious charge to have on your driving record - You need a serious defense!

The Call is Free and the Relief can be valuable. Toll Free 1-877-793-9290.

Search Casey’s Huge Plant City Florida DUI Defense Lawyer Database for Free


If you do not find what you are looking for, call today at 813-222-2220.

Plant City Florida Defense Lawyer,  W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr.  on Twitter


What About Forfeiture of Assets for DUI?

W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. in TampaFlorida handles DUI forfeiture cases in State and Federal Courts. Call Casey today for a free phone consultation to discuss how Casey can help you, your family, or your company.

Casey is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer with civil and criminal litigation experience.


Call Casey Toll Free 1-813-222-2220.






Casey is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer with diverse criminal litigation experience. Main Office Tampa Conveniently Located: Tampa, Florida 1101 Channelside Drive, Tampa, FL 33602. Licensed in Florida, Federal Middle District of Florida
Plant City DUI
Plant City Florida Defense Lawyer,  W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. , W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. 813-222-2220 |

Plant City DUI Attorney Florida Defense Lawyer


Stop Worrying Call An Experienced DUI Plant City Attorney Now! 813-222-2220

W. F."Casey" Ebsary, Jr., former prosecutor and Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer has been attorney of record in hundreds of DUI cases. He has represented clients in driving under the influence (DUI) and driving while intoxicated (DWI) cases in many Florida counties. He is a former Assistant State Attorney (Prosecutor) and a former Assistant Public Defender. He has litigation experience which includes DUI Plant City, counterfeiting, driving under the influence, fraud, forgery, murder, money laundering, and theft. Mr. Ebsary is AV rated by the Martindale Hubbell Directory. That is the highest rating issued by this nationally recognized lawyer rating service. An AV Rating shows that a lawyer has reached the height of professional excellence. AV rated lawyers have usually practiced law for many years, and are recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity. The Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Icon is a service mark of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under permission from Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. in accord with the terms and conditions established by Martindale-Hubbell. W. F."Casey" Ebsary, Jr. is a distinguished author and lecturer. He has been a legal analyst on radio and TV. His primary office is in downtown Tampa Florida in Hillsborough County.
Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: August 3, 2016, 11:09 pm

DUI St Petersburg Attorney Lawyer Call for help when DUI troubles arise
(813) 222-2220


Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer

DUI St Petersburg Attorney Lawyer St Petersburg DUI St Pete DUI Board Certified Attorney Lawyer W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr., St. Petersburg DUI Attorney  Lawyer, Board Certified Criminal Trial


Free Search You can Use Google to Search my Florida DUI Database for Free - If you do not find an answer, call me.




St Petersburg, Florida DUI - Attorney and Former DUI Prosecutor, W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr., was an Assistant State Attorney / DUI Prosecutor in the State Attorney's Office and has handled hundreds, of DUI cases as a trial lawyer. Drivers facing DUI or BUI in St Petersburg, Florida can call Casey for help when DUI troubles arise.

Casey is Board Certified in Criminal Trial Law by the Florida Bar Board of Legal Specialization and Education. Less than 1/2 of 1 percent of Florida's lawyers have qualified for this distinction. Click on the Florida Bar Board Certified Criminal Trial Icon above to review Casey's qualifications.

St Petersburg DUI Arrest Award Winner - Officer Robbie Arkovich of the St Petersburg Police Department has been recognized for 1000 arrests.

More DUI St.Petersburg


DUI and other Criminal misdemeanor charges that occur in Pinellas County, Florida are assigned to one of three courthouses. They are located in North, South and Central Pinellas County.

There are three courthouses in Pinellas County, Florida. Each DUI defendant is assigned to either the North, South or Central Pinellas County Courthouse.

DUI Cases from St Petersburg, Florida can be assigned to the courthouse in St. Petersburg, Florida.

DUI St Petersburg Attorney Lawyer

Serious Charge | Serious Defense

(813)222-2220

AV Preeminent Rated - The prestigious and very distinguished award from Martindale-Hubbell / Lawyers.com states, the Lawyer has the "Highest Possible Rating in Both Legal Ability & Ethical Standards. . . .An AV® certification mark is a significant rating accomplishment - a testament to the fact that a lawyer's peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence." W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. has this rating. Casey has been recognized by his peers with this award of professional excellence for many years since entering private practice.

Let me help you, a friend or a loved one.

Board Certified Criminal Trial Specialist, W.F. ''Casey' Ebsary Jr. knows that DUI is serious charge to have on your driving record. You need a serious defense! The Call is Free and the Relief can be valuable. 
(813)222-2220

You Can Search Casey’s Huge St Petersburg Florida DUI Defense Lawyer / Attorney Information Database for Free at the top of the page. If you do not find what you are looking for, call me today at (813)222-2220 .

DUI Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer near St Petersburg Florida Defense Lawyer,  W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr.  on Twitter

What About Forfeiture of Assets for DUI?


W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. in Tampa, Florida handles forfeiture cases in State and Federal Courts. Call Casey today for a free phone consultation to discuss how Casey can help you, your family, or your company.

Casey is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer with civil and criminal litigation experience.

DUI St.Petersburg Forfeiture Attorney | DUI St.Petersburg Florida Forfeiture Lawyer

Call Casey (813)222-2220

Casey is a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer with diverse criminal litigation experience. Main Office Tampa Conveniently Located: 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606. Licensed in Florida, Federal Middle District of Florida, and the 11th Federal Circuit. Call Casey (813)222-2220 .

DUI Defense Lawyer near St Petersburg FL,   W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Jr. (813)222-2220 |

Pinellas County Criminal Courthouse DUI St Petersburg Attorney Defense Lawyer

W. F."Casey Ebsary, Jr., former prosecutor and Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer has been attorney of record in hundreds of DUI cases. He has represented clients in driving under the influence (DUI) and driving while intoxicated (DWI) cases in many Florida counties. He is a former Assistant State Attorney (Prosecutor) and a former Assistant Public Defender. He has litigation experience which includes DUI St Petersburg, counterfeiting, driving under the influence, fraud, forgery, murder, money laundering, and theft. Mr. Ebsary is AV rated by the Martindale-Hubbell Directory. That is the highest rating issued by this nationally recognized lawyer rating service. An AV Rating shows that a lawyer has reached the height of professional excellence. AV rated lawyers have usually practiced law for many years, and are recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity. W. F. Casey Ebsary, Jr. is a distinguished author and lecturer. He has been a legal analyst on radio and TV. His primary office is in downtown Tampa Florida in Hillsborough County.


Previous Stories on St. Petersburg, Florida


Pinellas Sobriety Checkpoint 1700 34th Street St. Petersburg Florida.

www.dui2go.com/2012/12/pinellas-sobriety-checkpoint-1700-34th.html
 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Dec 14, 2012 - Pinellas DUI Attorney reports DUI Checkpoint 1700 34th Street North, St. Petersburg., Florida.

GPS Cop Cleared of Hit and Run | Florida | Tampa

www.dui2go.com/2010/12/gps-cop-cleared-of-hit-and-run-florida.html
 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Dec 24, 2010 - Tampa DUI Defense Attorney observes that a St. Petersburg Police Department Officer was acquitted when he went on trial for hit and run in his ...

Pinellas DUI Checkpoint - 8900 US19 North in Pinellas Park FL

www.dui2go.com/2014/04/pinellas-dui-checkpoint-8900-us19-north.html
 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Apr 23, 2014 - St.Petersburg Police Department, Largo Police Department The checkpoint will be held at 8900 US19 North in Pinellas Park. (Calvary Chapel ...

DUI Attorney Tampa On Call | 813.222.2220 | Hillsborough County FL ...

www.dui2go.com/2012_12_01_archive.html
 Rating: 5 - ‎Review by Google+ User
Dec 1, 2012 - Pinellas DUI Attorney notes a Pinellas Sobriety Checkpoint at parking lot of the Publix Supermarket, 1700 34th Street North, St. Petersburg., ...

The Law Office of W. F. Casey Ebsary, Jr., Trial Lawyer
Licensed in Florida and Federal Middle District
Office Conveniently Located: 2102 W Cleveland St Tampa, Florida 33606

+ Law Office of W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr. Profile
+ W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr. Profile
Law Office of W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary, Jr. on Google Earth (KML)
27.943164,-82.4834057
Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: July 16, 2016, 4:37 am
dui, failure to preserve evidence, Motion to  Dismiss, Motion to Suppress, Video,
Motion to Dismiss Granted

Motion to Dismiss Granted


"the Deputy acted in bad faith by failing to follow the policy of the Sheriff's Office when the Deputy had the ability to video record the field sobriety tests and failed to do so" 

We have previously noted that failure to preserve evidence in a DUI case can be a defense. See http://www.dui2go.com/p/dui-attorney-tampa-home.html .  One Florida county we frequently have appeared in has become notorious for “losing” videos of suspects.

Sample Video Policy Policy Manuals




Here is part of a typical Hillsborough County / Tampa Bay area law enforcement DUI Video Procedure Manual . Here is the Video Procedure Manual used by the Florida Highway Patrol.

A jury may be instructed that the police failure to preserve evidence is misconduct. See http://www.centrallaw.com/destruction-of-evidence-jury-instruction-criminal-case-rare-ruling/  Typically, a Motion to Suppress or Dismiss similar to the Motion we filed below can help a Judge find police misconduct for which the State will be penalized.

Here is a typical Field Sobriety Exercise Video from a Tampa DUI Traffic Stop





“The trial court ordered all evidence of field sobriety test 
results be suppressed as a 
sanction for the failure to record the FSTs.”

Here is a Motion from a recent case where the cops played games with the video:

SAMPLE MOTION TO SUPPRESS OR DISMISS


1. The Defendant, XXXXXXXXXX,  by and through his undersigned attorney and moves this Court for an Order dismissing this case pursuant to State v. Powers, 555 So.2d 888 (2nd DCA 1990) and as grounds therefore would state:

2. Deputy Lester stopped XXXXXXXXXX. Deputy Tiburcio conducted the DUI investigation. In the course of completing the investigation, no video was taken of the scene investigation. 

3. The Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office is the 4th largest Sheriff's Office in the United States and was the 1st Sheriff's Office in the state to be accredited and the 1st in the nation to be re-accredited by the Commission on Law Enforcement Accreditation, Inc. (CALEA).

4. Most agencies including HCSO, FHP, and TPD now have this video policy to remain CALEA Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies certified. 

AGENCY STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE. 

a. The in-car video/audio system will automatically activate and begin recording when the vehicle’s emergency lights and/or siren are activated. At their discretion, officers may also manually activate the system to begin recording without activating the emergency equipment. All traffic stops, police pursuits, “code one” situations, and DUI investigations will be recorded.

b. Failure to activate the in-car video/audio system as outlined in this SOP, properly retain and store tapes, or the abuse or misuse of the in-car video/audio system may result in disciplinary action.

5. None of the deputies, presumably with camera-equipped cell phones made any effort to record this DUI investigation.

6. The Defendant’s due process rights have been violated. When evidence is incomplete rather than requiring the Defendant to vindicate herself through the trial process, the appropriate remedy is dismissal based upon the Defendant’s inability to demonstrate that her normal faculties were not impaired on the evening of his arrest by showing a recording containing the required sound to the jury. 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS OR DISMISS

 
Courts recognize that videotape evidence is unique objective evidence for jury to consider. Ordinarily, a DUI prosecution depends heavily on the opinion of the arresting officer. A videotape can serve to teach the officer’s testimony on issues of material to question of impairment. Moreover and refusal case like XXXXXXXXX’s, physical signs of impairment are of utmost importance.  See Florida v. Davis, 14 So. 2d 1130 (4th DCA 2009). 

In Davis, the recording was lost during the transfer of the recording from the hard drive to digital video disc. On appeal the Fourth District reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the DUI as a sanction for the loss of the tape. The Davis court agreed with the defendant that simply not informing the jury that the tape ever existed was an inadequate solution for the failure to preserve critical evidence. Id. at 1133.  The court remanded and suggested other possibilities including precluding the state from utilizing the roadside sobriety tests were possible sanctions. Id.  In addition the Fourth suggested the trial court could instruct the jury that they may infer that the lost evidence is exculpatory.  Id.

The Second District upheld a circuit court’s reversal of a dismissal sanction where the video made by a digital video camera during a traffic stop was lost in the attempt to transfer the data to DVD.   Bennett v. State, 23 So. 3d 782 (2nd DCA 2009).   The court reversed for the county court to consider whether the evidence was material exculpatory evidence or only possibly useful.  Case law is not clear on whether the State or defendant  has this burden of proof.  Id. at 792.
This case is a little different. Here, law enforcement made an executive decision to begin patrol with equipment that could not record a full and fair rendition of the investigation despite their own policies requiring them to do so. 

Law enforcement made a choice to limit the nature of evidence they obtained and violated XXXXXXXXXX’s due process right to complete evidence.  The burden on the state to have fully functional equipment is not an onerous one.  The HCSO and CALEA Certification contemplate that complete recording should and will be taken.  

Alternatively available video equipment was not utilized – the deputies’ cell phones.  The results are incomplete evidence that could contain exculpatory fruit.  Because the deputies chose to enter the field without complete video recording capability, the remedy of suppression of all investigatory information that would have been completely recorded is reasonable. 

The defense requests to Court to enter an Order that:

The state will be precluded from having the officers testify to what was seen or heard after activation of the mobile video/audio recording should have occurred and no later than the activation of the emergency warning devices in the police cruisers.

The state will be precluded from using or eliciting testimony about roadside sobriety tests.

The state will be precluded from eliciting testimony regarding refusal to submit to a breath test.

The jury will be instructed that they may infer that lost evidence is exculpatory.

The jury will be instructed that missing video contained information detrimental to the State Of Florida’s case.

The jury will be instructed that missing video would not contain any evidence incriminating the defendant.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, XXXXXXXXXX, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to suppress all evidence collected from the time the video should have run, including the alleged driving pattern.


RECENT DUI DISMISSED CASE EXCERPTS


What is exculpatory evidence in a DUI case?

“the Deputy testified that Appellee's performance on two parts of the FSTs would be considered exculpatory evidence. The Deputy testified on cross-examination that although Appellee exhibited signs of impairment based on his performance of four of the FSTs, Appellee performed well on two of the exercises, and therefore the trial court found a video-recording of the tests would be considered exculpatory evidence.”

Do cops have an obligation to videotape a DUI arrest?

“Law enforcement does not have a constitutional duty to perform any particular tests. Certain duties arise, however, once a policy of gathering evidence through certain tests is established . Once law enforcement has gathered and taken possession of evidence, a duty of preservation in some form attaches.” 

“the evidence was exculpatory because the Deputy testified that Appellee performed well on two of the FSTs, and that the opportunity to cross-examine the officer was not the equivalent of a video-recording of the FSTs.”

“ the trial court found the Deputy acted in bad faith by failing to follow the policy of the Sheriff's Office when the Deputy had the ability to video record the field sobriety tests and failed to do so without sufficient justification , and again dismissed the charges. “

“the Deputy's justification for not recording the investigation was insufficient, when it was the policy of the Sheriffs Office at the time to video-record field sobriety investigations.”

“The Deputy testified on cross-examination that although Appellee exhibited signs of impairment based on his performance of four of the FSTs, Appellee performed well on two of the exercises, and therefore the trial court found a video-recording of the tests would be considered exculpatory evidence.”

What can be done when a DUI Video is lost or destroyed?


“The trial court ordered all evidence of field sobriety test results be suppressed as a sanction for the failure to record the FSTs.” 

COMPLETE COURT OPINION IN FLORIDA DUI VIDEO PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE CASE


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY
APPELLATE DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellant,
v.
DUSTIN FUNDERBURG,
Appellee.

On appeal from County Court, Honorable Robert P. Cole,

Office of the State Attorney, for Appellant,

Randall C. Grantham, Esq., for Appellee .

UCN: 512016CF00455AOOOES
Appeal No: CRC1600455CFAES
L.T. No: 11•1010-XGBT-ES
I

ORDER AND OPINION

The trial court did not err by suppressing evidence of field sobriety test results as a sanction for the arresting officer's failure to comply with the policy of the Pasco Sheriff's Office that DUI investigations be video-recorded . The order of the trial court is affirmed.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

This case is before the Court for the third time on appeal. Appellant was arrested for DUI in violation of § 316.193, Fla. Stat. , on December 14, 2011 . At the first trial had in the matter, the trial court granted Appellee's motion to dismiss based on the failure to video-record the DUI investigation , which the court found to be a violation of due process as having deprived Appellee of exculpatory evidence, and that the Deputy's justification for not recording the investigation was insufficient, when it was the policy of the Sheriffs Office at the time to video-record field sobriety investigations. State appealed the June 4, 2012, order of the trial court. This Court found the trial court applied the incorrect legal standard when granting the motion to dismiss, and remanded the cause for further proceedings, directing the trial court that the applicable legal standard required a finding of bad faith to support dismissal of the charges. On remand, the trial court found the Deputy acted in bad faith by failing to follow the policy of the Sheriff's Office when the Deputy had the ability to video•record the field sobriety tests and failed to do so without sufficient justification , and again dismissed the charges. State appealed the dismissal and this Court reversed the trial court's order, finding the record insufficient to support a finding that the Deputy acted in bad faith . 

On remand a hearing was held on Appellee's motion to determine sanctions short of dismissal. The trial court ordered all evidence of field sobriety test results be suppressed as a sanction for the failure to record the FSTs. State appeals the order, alleging it was error to suppress the evidence and that Appellee was not entitled to any sanction.  

STANDARD OF REVIEW  

"Appellate review of a motion to suppress involves questions of both law and fact" Rosenquist v. State, 769 So. 2d 1051 , 1052 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). This Court reviews the trial court's application of the law to the facts of the case pursuant to a de novo standard . Id.; Ornelas v. U.S. , 517 U.S. 690, 698 (1996) ; State v. Petion , 992 So. 2d 889, 894 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Findings of fact by the trial court are reviewed for "clear error," and the Court will give deference to inferences drawn from those facts by the trial court and law enforcement officers. Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 699. See Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 806 (Fla. 2002).  

LAW AND ANALYSIS  

Appellant contends that the unpreserved evidence was not materially exculpatory, and therefore Appellee was not entitled to any remedy and it was error to suppress the evidence in this case. The trial court previously held in its February 3, 2014, order, that the evidence was exculpatory because the Deputy testified that Appellee performed well on two of the FSTs, and that the opportunity to cross-examine the officer was not the equivalent of a video-recording of the FSTs. 


"When determining whether a defendant's due process rights have been violated by the State's destruction of or failure to preserve evidence, a court must first consider whether the missing evidence was 'materially exculpatory' or only 'potentially useful. ", State v. Bennett, 111 So. 3d 943, 945 (Fla . 2d DCA 2013). Failure to preserve evidence "that is merely 'potentially useful,' posing only some likelihood of exonerating a defendant," constitutes "a denial of due process only when law enforcement acts in bad faith." Id. (citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 488 (1 984); Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 56-58 (1988)) . To be materially exculpatory, "evidence must both possess an exculpatory value that was apparent before the evidence was destroyed, and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means." Trombetta, 467 U.S. at 486-87. 

The trial court relied on State v. Davis, in suppressing the evidence, in which the Court held that dismissal was too harsh a sanction where there was no finding of bad faith , but the lost evidence was "material exculpatory evidence," and therefore "the loss of such evidence is a violation of the defendant's due process rights and the good or bad faith of the State is irrelevant. " 14 So. 3d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). In Davis, the Court remanded the cause to the trial court to consider sanctions short of dismissal to address the loss of evidence, noting that possible sanctions may include precluding State from presenting evidence of the roadside sobriety tests. Id. at 1133. 

In its previous order, this Court relied on State v. Powers, 555 So. 2d 888, 889 (Fla . 2d DCA 1990), in which the Court held that "the appellees' due process rights were not violated by the sheriff's department not video taping the appellees' performance during field sobriety testing ." State contends that based on this analysis, lesser sanctions are not appropriate absent a finding of bad faith , because this case does not involve lost or unpreserved evidence, and that Appellee was not entitled to any remedy based on the failure to video-record the FSTs. 

Appellee responds that the trial court's order is entitled to a presumption of correctness, and that the trial court found the Deputy's testimony was not credible. Appellee contends the decision to impose sanctions was within the trial court's 


discretion and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in this case. See Carr v. Reese, 788 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Turner v. Anderson, 376 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). 

In Powers, the express policy of the sheriff's office was not to video record performance tests, whereas in the instant case the Deputy acted in contravention of the Sheriff's Office express policy of video-recording FSTs. See Powers, 555 So. 2d 888. In Powers the Court held: 

Law enforcement does not have a constitutional duty to perform any particular tests. Certain duties arise, however, once a policy of gathering evidence through certain tests is established . Once law enforcement has gathered and taken possession of evidence, a duty of preservation in some form attaches. 

Id. at 890 (citing Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51). Further, 

Whatever duty law enforcement has to preserve evidence, that duty must be limited to evidence that might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect's defense. To meet this standard of constitutional materiality, evidence must both possess an exculpatory value and be of such a nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means. 

Id. at 891 . See Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479. The trial court found that the Deputy testified that Appellee's performance on two parts of the FSTs would be considered exculpatory evidence. The Deputy testified on cross-examination that although Appellee exhibited signs of impairment based on his performance of four of the FSTs, Appellee performed well on two of the exercises, and therefore the trial court found a video-recording of the tests would be considered exculpatory evidence. This Court will not reverse the factual findings of the trial court absent a showing of clear error. Pagan, 830 So. 2d at 806. The trial court's finding on this issue is supported by the Deputy's testimony in this case. The Court finds it was not error for the trial court to suppress the evidence of the FST results in reliance on Davis, 14 So. 3d at 1132. The order of the trial court is affirmed . 


CONCLUSION 

It was not error for the trial court to suppress the evidence in this case based on the Deputy's conduct in failing to record the field sobriety tests. The order of the trial court is affirmed .  It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the order of the trial court is AFFIRMED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at New Port Richey, Pasco County, Florida This ____  of May, 2016. 

Source: 


Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: July 11, 2016, 2:42 am
Fourth of July Law Enforcement and DUI Patrols in Tampa Bay
Fourth of July Law Enforcement and
DUI Patrols in Tampa Bay
Whether you're on the road or at the beach—have a safe and happy holiday weekend! Expect DUI checkpoints or other deployments throughout the Tampa Bay area.

FINAL UPDATE: Over the holiday weekend, Friday through Monday, Tampa police made 34 DUI arrests.


UPDATE 1: Tampa Police say, "We will be conducting a DUI Checkpoint tonight at Sligh Av E and Branch Ave. N from 10 pm to 1 am. Be safe this weekend and don't drink and drive."

UPDATE 2 WTSP reports a Tampa bay Area wolfpack of cops nabbed several. Here are the numbers:




  • 13 DUI
  • 4 Possession of a Controlled Substance (Misdemeanor)
  • 7 Possession of a Controlled Substance (Felony)
  • 1 Possession Drug Paraphernalia
  • 4 Fleeing and Eluding (Motorcycle)
  • 5 Misdemeanor Driving While License Suspended and/or revoked with Knowledge
  • 2 DWLS/R (Felony)
  • 2 Felony Burglary/Battery
  • 1 Leaving Scene of a Crash with Injury (Felony)
  • 1 Obstruction of Justice
  • 12 Driving while License Suspended or Revoked with Knowledge
  • 24 Speeding
  • 61 Citations for other moving and non-moving violations
Source: http://www.wtsp.com/news/authorities-nab-13-dui-drivers-in-latest-wolfpack-operation-in-pinellas/262227882

UPDATE 3: Fox News reports "There are many options for responsible transportation to and from holiday celebrations in the Bay Area -  from a cab, to Uber, to the Tow to Go program, where a tow truck will actually pick you up and get you and your car home safely, free of charge. Tow to Go will be available until 6 a.m. Tuesday, July 5. For more information on how it works, visit http://autoclubsouth.aaa.com/safety/tow_to_go.aspx or call (855) 2-TOW-2-GO or (855) 286-9246."

Source:  http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/168842679-story

DUI Checkpoint at Sligh Avenue East and Branch Avenue, Tampa, Florida July 1 - 2. See Map Below.


Best times to drive safely this 4th of July weekend are are:
  

Law Enforcement Schedules


Thursday 06/30

7pm – 1am
Early holiday celebrations and visitors arriving for the weekend.
  
Friday 07/01

5pm – 3am
The weekend officially starts and Friday evening hours will be busy with the St. Pete First Friday block party and in downtown Tampa & SOHO area.
  
Saturday 07/02

3pm – 3am
DUI patrols will likely be wolfpacks and steady throughout the day and evening.
  
Sunday 07/03

3pm – 2am
Holiday events will make this Sunday busier than usual for Florida and Tampa Bay DUI patrol officers.
  
Monday 07/04

3pm – 11pm
There will be several parades throughout the city followed by fireworks later in the evening! Expect massive enforcement presence.

Tampa DUI Checkpoint Map




#DUI #Tampa #LoveFL #ThursdayThoughts  #DUICheckpoint

Author: W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Posted: June 30, 2016, 6:03 pm

Ratings and Reviews

yelp
Google +

Criminal Defense Attorney Tampa Review

"Casey's strong arguments during the hearing made all the difference ..."


Written by: Google+ User


W.F. ''Casey'' Ebsary, Jr.


5.0 / 5 stars