Can an Off-Duty Officer Stop You Outside Their Jurisdiction? Understanding State v. Schenck

When you see blue lights in your rearview mirror, you generally assume the officer has full legal authority to pull you over. But what happens when an off-duty officer, driving their personal vehicle outside their official city or county jurisdiction, initiates a traffic stop or arrest for suspected DUI?

In Florida, the legal boundaries governing out-of-jurisdiction stops are critical in driving under the influence defense. A landmark ruling from Florida’s Ninth Judicial Circuit, State of Florida v. Deborah Anne Schenck (Appellate Case No. 2013-AP-30-A-O), directly addressed this issue and set an important precedent regarding citizen’s arrests, breaches of the peace, and off-duty DUI stops.

The Case: What Happened in State v. Schenck?

An off-duty Orlando Police Department officer was driving his personal car in Orange County—outside his official sworn municipal jurisdiction. While on the road, he noticed a vehicle in front of him driving approximately 20 mph in a 35 mph zone. Over the course of two miles, the officer observed the vehicle:

1. Weaving and “snaking” along the road at least ten times.
2. Veering off the right side of the roadway.
3. Crossing over the center dividing line.

When the vehicle stopped at a red light, the off-duty officer exited his car, identified himself, and ordered the driver not to drive any further while waiting for on-duty law enforcement to arrive. The driver, Deborah Anne Schenck, was ultimately arrested for DUI.

The Legal Conflict: Citizen’s Arrest vs. Unlawful Stop

At the trial court level, defense counsel filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer lacked authority to initiate a traffic stop outside his jurisdiction.

Under Florida law, an off-duty law enforcement officer outside their jurisdiction has no greater authority than an ordinary private citizen. A private citizen can only make an arrest under limited circumstances:

• For a felony committed in their presence, or
• For a misdemeanor if it constitutes a “breach of the peace.”

The trial court initially granted the motion to suppress, reasoning that because no other traffic was actively forced off the road or directly impacted, the driving pattern did not rise to the level of a breach of the peace.

The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling: DUI as a Breach of the Peace

The State appealed the trial court’s order to the Ninth Judicial Circuit Appellate Bench (Orange County, Florida).

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, reinstating the evidence and allowing the prosecution to proceed. Citing established Florida legal precedent—including State v. Furr (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) and Edwards v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)—the Ninth Circuit held that:

• Totality of Circumstances: A continuous pattern of severe, erratic driving over an extended distance (such as snaking 10+ times over two miles, running off the shoulder, and crossing the center line) poses a real threat to public safety.
• No Accident Required: An officer or citizen does not need to wait for a driver to cause a collision or endanger specific vehicles before intervening. Impaired driving that creates an imminent hazard constitutes a common-law breach of the peace.
• Distinction from Minor Infractions: The court highlighted that minor infractions—such as driving slightly over the speed limit or failing to make a complete stop (Charlotin v. State)—do not justify an out-of-jurisdiction citizen’s arrest. However, prolonged erratic driving suggesting severe impairment does.

Key Takeaways for Florida Drivers Facing DUI Charges

1. Jurisdiction Matters: If an officer stops you outside their designated geographic jurisdiction, the validity of the stop hinges on whether their actions met the strict standard of a valid citizen’s arrest.
2. Every Fact Counts: Suppressing evidence in out-of-jurisdiction stops depends on details such as distance observed, specific lane deviations, speed, and surrounding traffic conditions.
3. Challenging Law Enforcement Authority: If an off-duty officer or out-of-bounds agency pulled you over, a detailed review of body-cam footage, dispatch records, and GPS logs can reveal whether the stop violated your Constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.

How Our Team Can Help

DUI charges involve complex statutory rules, administrative driver’s license suspensions, and intricate constitutional search-and-seizure laws. Challenging the legality of the initial traffic stop is often one of the strongest defense strategies available.

If you or a loved one were arrested following an out-of-jurisdiction stop or an off-duty officer intervention, explore our comprehensive DUI Defense Practice Areas to learn more about your constitutional rights. Read about our experienced legal team on our Attorney Profile & Firm Bio Page to see how we advocate for drivers across Florida.

Don’t navigate the legal system alone. Contact Your Defense Team Today for a confidential case evaluation.

Full Text of the Opinion

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA
Appellant,

v.

DEBORAH ANNE SCHENCK,
Appellee.

APPELLATE CASE NO. 2013-AP-30-A-O
Lower Case No. 2013-CT-569-A-E

_____________/

Appeal from the County Court for Orange County, Florida
A. James Craner, County Court Judge

Jeffrey Ashton, State Attorney, and Brian Toti, Assistant State Attorney for Appellant
William R. Ponall, Esq., for Appellee

Before J. KEST, ROCHE, PERRY, J.J.

PER CURIAM.

FINAL ORDER REVERSING THE TRIAL COURT

The State appeals the trial court’s order granting Appellee’s motion to suppress the evidence resulting from a traffic stop. Where the facts are not in dispute, which they are not here, the appellate court reviews the application of the law to the facts. Armstrong v. State, 46 So. 3d 589, 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

At the suppression hearing held on August 16, 2013, Orlando Police Officer Steve Adams testified that he was off duty, out of uniform, in his own car, and out of his jurisdiction when he observed Appellee’s car in front of him weaving in and out of its lane and driving significantly slower than the speed limit—about 20 mph in a 35 mph zone. He said the car’s tires went off the right side of the roadway, then came across to the left and crossed the centerline. He followed the car for about two miles, during which time it “snaked” along the road at least ten times. The officer called 911, and, when both cars stopped at a red light, he exited his car, approached the driver, and identified himself as an off-duty officer. He told her he was stopping her from driving any further. An on-duty officer arrived shortly thereafter to conduct a DUI investigation and Appellee’s arrest ensued.

Appellee sought to suppress the arrest on the grounds that the off-duty officer had no authority to stop her vehicle. An off-duty officer outside of his or her jurisdiction has the same but no greater authority to conduct an arrest than any other citizen. State v. Price, 74 So. 3d 528, 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). A citizen may conduct an arrest when he or she observes a person commit any felony, or a misdemeanor if that misdemeanor constitutes a breach of the peace. Roberts v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 976 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). See also, Edwards v. State, 462 So. 2d 581, 582 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985): “At common law, a private citizen may arrest a person who in the citizen’s presence commits a felony or breach of the peace.”

The trial court ruled that there was no evidence that Appellee was committing a breach of the peace. It noted that there was no other traffic affected by her driving. With regard to misdemeanor DUI constituting a breach of peace, State v. Furr, 723 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) found that it was not necessary that a driver impact any other traffic for DUI to constitute a breach of the peace. Furr concluded, “We . . . reject the notion that appellee’s drunk driving on a less-traveled stretch of rural roadway is not a breach of the peace.” Id. at 844. Under the rationale of Furr, the mere act of DUI is a breach of the peace because it endangers the public with actual or threatened violence and an off-duty officer is not obligated to wait for a suspected DUI driver to run vehicles off the road or worse before intervening.

Furr teaches that an off-duty officer outside of his or her jurisdiction can conduct a citizen’s arrest if the actions of the driver constituted a “breach of the peace” and, further, that DUI can be a breach of peace if the driver endangers or threatens to endanger the public. It appears that each case has to be reviewed on its own facts. The question comes down to whether the observed actions are sufficient to constitute a threat to the peace if the driver was not observed impacting other traffic.

In Furr, the out-of-jurisdiction officer received a radio call that a truck was driving west in an eastbound lane. Two other individuals also told him that the truck was “all over the roadway.” The officer apparently observed the truck cross the center dividing line four or five times and then the officer pulled the truck over. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order suppressing the stop and found that the officer made a proper citizen’s arrest albeit outside his jurisdiction. The Furr court accepted the rationale of State v. Edwards, 462 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) with regard to DUI being a breach of the peace, noting that “the notion that no breach would occur unless the offending driver progressed from merely scaring other drivers to actually killing them” did not make sense and should be rejected. Furr at 844.

In Charlotin v. State of Florida, Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 907a (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. May 25, 2005), this Court quashed a driver’s license suspension, finding the evidence was not sufficient to allow a citizen’s arrest by an out-of-jurisdiction officer. In Charlotin, the only evidence was an observation of a speed of 20 mph in a 10 mph zone, and a failure to come to a complete stop while exiting an apartment complex. The Court found that “petitioner’s driving pattern did not rise to the level that would constitute a breach of the peace,” comparing it to other more egregious cases where the driving did constitute a breach: Seay v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 312a (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. Dec. 27, 2004) (asleep at wheel in middle of street); Cortinas v. State, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 416d (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. Feb. 11, 2004) (finding breach of the peace where driver swerved into oncoming traffic and struck the median); Overton v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 529a (Fla. 8th Cir. Ct. June 12, 2001) (finding breach of peace where driver ran two stop signs, failed to maintain a single lane, struck a curb, and ran off the road); Kuse v. State, 6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 473a (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. May 28, 1999) (finding breach of the peace where driver swerved from lane to lane and drove onto the sidewalk on two occasions).

Similarly, in Randall v. State of Florida, Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 614a (Fla. 9th Cir. Ct. April 1, 2009), this Court quashed a license suspension based on an out-of-jurisdiction citizen’s arrest where the officer reported the vehicle going 65-68 miles per hour in a 50 MPH zone and drifting within her lane from side to side. No witness testified at the hearing and no factual findings were made. Unlike Edwards and Furr, the officer apparently had not followed the defendant for any length of time. The Court found that “the driving pattern did not rise to the level that would constitute a breach of peace.”

Considering the facts detailed by Officer Adams in the case now before the Court, Furr, Edwards, Seay, Overton, and Kuse all suggest that the fact pattern did authorize the off-duty officer to conduct the stop. He testified that he followed the vehicle for approximately two miles and saw it (1) weaving in and out of its lane, (2) driving significantly below the speed limit, (3) its tires going off the roadway, (4) crossing the centerline and (5) “snaking” along the roadway at least 10 times. While any one of these alone may not have been sufficient, the totality of the observations made by the officer himself over a two-mile stretch of road were sufficient to allow the stop. Randall and Charlotin are distinguishable as having less egregious driving patterns that were not observed over a significant period of time.

It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress is REVERSED and the matter REMANDED for further proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this 16th day of June, 2014.

/S/
JOHN MARSHALL KEST
Presiding Circuit Judge

ROCHE and PERRY, J.J., concur.

Jury instructions in a Florida DUI (Driving Under the Influence) case are the legal guidelines provided by the judge to the jury before they deliberate and reach a verdict. These instructions are meant to clarify the law and help the jury apply it to the specific facts of the case. Keep in mind that jury instructions may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case, but here is a general overview of the types of instructions that might be given in a DUI trial:

1. Presumption of Innocence: The judge will instruct the jury that the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They should not assume guilt but must consider all the evidence presented during the trial.

2. Elements of the Offense: The judge will explain the elements of the DUI offense that the prosecution must prove. This typically includes proving that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

3. Standard of Proof: The judge will explain that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and they must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a high standard of proof.

4. Impartiality: The jury will be instructed to remain impartial and not let any personal biases or prejudices influence their decision.

5. Evaluating Evidence: Instructions will be given on how to evaluate and consider the evidence presented during the trial, including testimony, documents, and physical evidence.

6. Expert Witnesses: If expert witnesses were called, the judge may provide instructions on how to consider their testimony.

7. Field Sobriety Tests: If relevant, the judge may instruct the jury on the various field sobriety tests used by law enforcement and how they should weigh the results.

8. Chemical Tests: Instructions may cover the use of chemical tests, such as breathalyzer or blood tests, and how to consider the results.

9. Reasonable Doubt: The judge will explain the concept of reasonable doubt and emphasize that if the jury has any reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt, they must acquit.

10. Deliberation: Instructions will be provided on how the jury should conduct deliberations, including the need for unanimous agreement on a verdict.

11. Verdict Options: The jury will be informed about the possible verdict options, which typically include guilty, not guilty, or in some cases, a lesser offense like reckless driving.

12. Jury Questions: The judge may instruct the jury on how to communicate with the court if they have questions during deliberations.

It’s important to note that these instructions can vary by jurisdiction and the specific charges involved in the DUI case. Jurors are expected to follow these instructions carefully to ensure a fair and just verdict based on the evidence presented during the trial.

Driving under the Influence Causing Property Damage / Injury? Call (813) 222-2220

Florida Standard Jury Instructions Overview

In Florida, judges provide crucial instructions provided to juries when a DUI incident involves a crash or injury. These instructions serve as the legal roadmap for jurors, ensuring a fair and just trial. Jurors are guided through essential elements of the offense, such as the defendant’s impairment level, blood-alcohol concentration, and whether they caused property damage or injury. The instructions emphasize the presumption of innocence, the high burden of proof placed on the prosecution, and the need for impartiality in deliberations. Moreover, jurors are educated on key definitions, including the concept of “normal faculties” and “actual physical control” of a vehicle. In cases of inoperability, the defense is outlined, emphasizing that inoperability can be a valid defense if proven. These comprehensive instructions are vital in safeguarding the rights and fairness of DUI trials in Florida.

Official Florida DUI Standard Jury Instructions

§ 316.193(3)(a)(b)(c)1, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Driving under the Influence Causing [Property Damage] [Injury], the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Defendant) drove or was in actual physical control of a vehicle.

2. While driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle, (defendant)

Give 2a or b or both as applicable.

a. was under the influence of [alcoholic beverages] [a chemical substance] [a controlled substance] to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired.

b. had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .08 or more grams of alcohol per [100 milliliters of blood] [210 liters of breath].

3. As a result of operating the vehicle, (defendant) caused or contributed to causing [damage to the property of (victim)] [injury to the person of (victim)].

Give if applicable. (Offenses committed prior to October 1, 2008, alcohol level of .20 or higher.)
If you find the defendant guilty of Driving under the Influence Causing [Property Damage] [Injury], you must also determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt whether:

a. the defendant had a [blood] [breath]-alcohol level of .15 or higher while driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle.

b. the defendant was accompanied in the vehicle by a person under the age of 18 years at the time of the driving under the influence.

Definitions. Give as applicable.

Vehicle is every device, in, upon or by which any person or property is, or may be, transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

Normal faculties include but are not limited to the ability to see, hear, walk, talk, judge distances, drive an automobile, make judgments, act in emergencies and, in general, to normally perform the many mental and physical acts of our daily lives.

Actual physical control of a vehicle means the defendant must be physically in or on the vehicle and have the capability to operate the vehicle, regardless of whether [he] [she] is actually operating the vehicle at the time.

Alcoholic beverages are considered to be substances of any kind and description which contain alcohol.

( ) is a controlled substance under Florida law. Ch. 893,
Fla. Stat.

( ) is a chemical substance under Florida law. § 877.111(1), Fla. Stat.

When appropriate, give one or more of the following instructions on the presumptions of impairment established by § 316.1934(2)(a), (2)(b), and (2)(c), Fla. Stat.

1. If you find from the evidence that while driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, the defendant had a blood or breath-alcohol level of .05 or less, you shall presume that the defendant was not under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired; but this presumption may be overcome by other evidence demonstrating that the defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired.

2. If you find from the evidence that while driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, the defendant had a blood or breath-alcohol level in excess of .05 but less than .08, that fact does not give rise to any presumption that the defendant was or was not under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. In such cases, you may consider that evidence along with other evidence in determining whether the defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired.

3. If you find from the evidence that while driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, the defendant had a blood or breath-alcohol level of .08 or more, that evidence would be sufficient by itself to establish that the defendant was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired. But this evidence may be contradicted or rebutted by other evidence demonstrating that the defendant was not under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that [his] [her] normal faculties were impaired.

Defense of inoperability; give if applicable.

It is a defense to the charge of Driving under the Influence Causing [Property Damage] [Injury] if at the time of the alleged offense, the vehicle was inoperable. However, it is not a defense if the defendant was driving under the influence before the vehicle became inoperable. Therefore, if you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the vehicle was operable at the time of the alleged offense, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if you are convinced that the vehicle was operable at the time of the alleged offense, then you should find the defendant guilty, if all the other elements of the charge have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.