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.

One recent Gasparilla, there were 5 BUI Boating Under the Influence Arrests. The Police, Sheriff’s Office, Coast Guard, and Florida Fish and Wildlife will be using a Mobile Facility this year to process arrests made on the water. See video at bottom of this article. Many of these charges listed below are criminal charges that can result in a permanent criminal record

Common Charges From The Gasparilla Weekend.

If you have been charged with TPOR0064 POSSESSION OF OPEN CONTAINER you can call a Defense Attorney Tampa at (813) 222-2220 and tell me your story.

Form Code: TPOR0064
City of Tampa Municipal Code: 003.40.B
Level: Municipal/Local
Description: POSSESSION OF OPEN CONTAINER

TPOR0064 POSSESSION OF OPEN CONTAINER one of the most commonly charged offenses in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Sec. 3-40. – Consumption and possession of open containers on streets, sidewalks, alleys and other public property.

(b) It is unlawful for any person to possess an open container of an alcoholic beverage upon any street, sidewalk, alley or other public property, including public or semi-public parking lots, within the city.

(1) As used in subsection (b), “open container” means any vessel or container containing an alcoholic beverage, including beer or wine, which is immediately capable of consumption or the seal of which has been broken.

(2) An open container shall be considered to be in the possession of the person if the container is in the physical control of such person.

Tampa Open Container Ordinance Sec. 3-40. – Consumption and possession of open containers on streets, sidewalks, alleys and other public property.

(a)It is unlawful for any person to consume, assist or aid another to consume any alcoholic beverage upon any street, sidewalk, alley or other public property within the city.

(b)It is unlawful for any person to possess an open container of an alcoholic beverage upon any street, sidewalk, alley or other public property, including public or semi-public parking lots, within the city.

(1)As used in subsection (b), “open container” means any vessel or container containing an alcoholic beverage, including beer or wine, which is immediately capable of consumption or the seal of which has been broken.

(2)An open container shall be considered to be in the possession of the person if the container is in the physical control of such person.

(c)Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply when:

(1)The street, connecting sidewalk or alley has been officially temporarily closed upon application to the director of public works and the approval of the city council for the purpose of a block party as provided in this Code; or

(2)A portion of a sidewalk has been leased and permitted as a sidewalk café as provided for in chapter 22 of this Code; or

(3)Public property has been zoned and permitted for the sale of alcoholic beverages pursuant to law; or

(4)A portion of the street, connecting sidewalk or alley has been marked and/or designated as a crossing for a public golf course.

(Ord. No. 99-229, § 1, 10-28-99; Ord. No. 2007-19, § 2, 2-1-07)

MISC0112 Possession of Alcoholic Beverage by Person UND

If you have been charged with MISC0112 POSSESSION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE BY PERSON UND you can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer at (813) 222-2220 and tell me your story.

MISC0112 POSSESSION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE BY PERSON UND is often charged in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XXXIV ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO
Chapter 562 BEVERAGE LAW: ENFORCEMENT

562.111 Possession of alcoholic beverages by persons under age 21 prohibited.

(1) It is unlawful for any person under the age of 21 years, except a person employed under the provisions of s. 562.13 acting in the scope of her or his employment, to have in her or his possession alcoholic beverages, except that nothing contained in this subsection shall preclude the employment of any person 18 years of age or older in the sale, preparation, or service of alcoholic beverages in licensed premises in any establishment licensed by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco or the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 562.45, any person under the age of 21 who is convicted of a violation of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083; however, any person under the age of 21 who has been convicted of a violation of this subsection and who is thereafter convicted of a further violation of this subsection is, upon conviction of the further offense, guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(2) The prohibition in this section against the possession of alcoholic beverages does not apply to the tasting of alcoholic beverages by a student who is at least 18 years of age, who is tasting the alcoholic beverages as part of the student’s required curriculum at a postsecondary educational institution that is institutionally accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education and that is licensed or exempt from licensure pursuant to the provisions of chapter 1005 or is a public postsecondary education institution; if the student is enrolled in the college and is tasting the alcoholic beverages only for instructional purposes during classes that are part of such a curriculum; if the student is allowed only to taste, but not consume or imbibe, the alcoholic beverages; and if the alcoholic beverages at all times remain in the possession and control of authorized instructional personnel of the college who are 21 years of age or older.

(3) In addition to any other penalty imposed for a violation of subsection (1), the court shall direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to withhold issuance of, or suspend or revoke, the violator’s driver’s license or driving privilege, as provided in s. 322.056.

Common Charges From the Gasparilla Weekend.

If you have been charged with TRAF1012 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE You can call a Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer at (813) 222-2220 and tell me your story.

Form Code: TRAF1012

Florida Statute: 316.193.1
Level: Misd (Misdemeanor)
Degree: 2nd

Description: DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE

Title XXIII MOTOR VEHICLES
Chapter 316 STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL

316.193 Driving under the influence; penalties.

(1) A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and:

(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired;

(b) The person has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood; or

(c) The person has a breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

Common Charges From The Gasparilla Weekend.

If you have been charged with TRAF1015 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE UNLAWFUL BREATH A (DUI determined with a Breathalyzer Intoxilyzer Machine) you can call a Tampa DUI Lawyer at (813) 222-2220 and tell me your story.

Form Code: TRAF1015
Florida Statute: 316.193.1C
Level: Misd (Misdemeanor)
Degree: 2nd
Description: DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE UNLAWFUL BREATH A (DUI determined with a Breathalyzer Machine)

TRAF1015 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE UNLAWFUL BREATH A (DUI determined with a Breathalyzer / Intoxilyzer Machine) one of the most commonly charged offenses in Hillsborough County, Florida.

Title XXIII MOTOR VEHICLES
Chapter 316 STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL

316.193 Driving under the influence; penalties.

(1) A person is guilty of the offense of driving under the influence and is subject to punishment as provided in subsection (2) if the person is driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state and:

(a) The person is under the influence of alcoholic beverages, any chemical substance set forth in s. 877.111, or any substance controlled under chapter 893, when affected to the extent that the person’s normal faculties are impaired;

(b) The person has a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 o r more grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood; or

(c) The person has a breath-alcohol level of 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

Police Will Also Be on the Lookout For:

Open Containers Permitted Only Along The Parade Route – In Designated Areas

Must Be 21 Or Older To Consume Alcohol

Alcohol May Not Be Consumed From Kegs Or Large Vessels

No Glass Permitted

Use Port-O-Lets Or Other Restroom Facilities

No Fighting

No Trespassing On Private Property

No Flashing Or Nudity For Beads

Common Charges From The Gasparilla Weekend.

Notice to Appear? Tell Me Your Story Toll Free (813) 222-2220.

Chapter 901 ARRESTS

901.28 Notice to appear for misdemeanors or violations of municipal or county ordinances; effect on authority to conduct search. — The issuance of a notice to appear shall not be construed to affect a law enforcement officer’s authority to conduct an otherwise lawful search, as provided by law.

901.31 Failure to obey written promise to appear.—Any person who willfully fails to appear before any court or judicial officer as required by a written notice to appear shall be fined not more than the fine of the principal charge or imprisoned up to the maximum sentence of imprisonment of the principal charge, or both, regardless of the disposition of the charge upon which the person was originally arrested. Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the court from exercising its power to punish for contempt.

BUI Video

Gasparilla Arrest? Get Affordable Help From an Attorney | Lawyer | Toll Free (813) 222-2220