Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog
In Florida, a DUI arrest must be supported by probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances. While direct observation of driving is often central to this analysis, officers may rely on credible information from civilian witnesses and circumstantial indicators of impairment. This was demonstrated by a recent Florida opinion that reinforced that citizen informants and corroborating evidence can support an arrest, even where the defendant is not caught in the act. If you are charged with a DUI offense, it is critical to understand your rights, and you should talk to a Tampa DUI defense attorney regarding your case.
Factual and Procedural History
It is alleged that the defendant was arrested following a crash involving a vehicle registered to him that collided with a business located in a shopping plaza. The defendant had driven the vehicle to a bar within the plaza earlier that same evening. After the incident, law enforcement responded to a 911 call placed by the bar manager, who had been alerted to the crash by his security guard.
It is reported that when officers arrived, the defendant’s vehicle had already been moved from the crash site, and the defendant was observed standing nearby with two other individuals. None of the officers witnessed the crash or directly observed the defendant operating the vehicle. However, officers testified that the bar manager identified the defendant as the vehicle’s owner and stated that his security guard had seen the crash.
It is further reported that the security guard informed officers that he had heard the crash, observed the defendant try and fail to drive the vehicle away, and then saw the defendant exit the driver’s side. The guard also observed the other two individuals exit from the front passenger and rear seats, respectively. Officers confirmed the vehicle was registered to the defendant and that he had the keys in his pocket. During their interaction, the defendant exhibited signs of impairment and admitted to drinking at the bar. A field sobriety test was administered, after which the defendant was arrested for DUI.
Allegedly, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence of his arrest, arguing that officers lacked probable cause because their conclusions relied on hearsay from unidentified witnesses. The county court agreed and granted the motion, finding the arrest unlawful. The State appealed.
Evidence Sufficient to Support a DUI Arrest
On appeal, the court applied the established standard that probable cause to arrest exists when the totality of the circumstances would lead a reasonable officer to believe a crime has been committed. The court noted that in DUI cases, this analysis does not require direct observation of driving but may be informed by reliable witness statements, admissions, and circumstantial evidence.
The court rejected the notion that the officers relied exclusively on hearsay. Instead, it concluded that the security guard and bar manager were not anonymous tipsters but “citizen informants,” individuals who provided face-to-face accounts based on personal observation. The court emphasized that such informants are presumed reliable, even if their names are not formally recorded at the time of the encounter. The security guard’s description of the defendant’s behavior and physical location in the vehicle was critical to the officers’ assessment.
Additionally, the court clarified that the accident report privilege under section 316.066(4), Florida Statutes, did not apply. That statute protects statements made by a person involved in a crash for the purpose of completing a crash report, and such statements are generally inadmissible. However, the defendant did not raise this issue in his motion to suppress, and neither the bar manager nor the security guard were parties to the crash. Their statements, therefore, fell outside the scope of the privilege.
Moreover, the court found that any information gathered during the crash investigation was shared in real time among the officers, allowing the arresting officer to rely on it under the “fellow officer rule.” This doctrine permits officers working together to aggregate their observations when forming probable cause.
The court also emphasized that the defendant’s own conduct bolstered the officers’ conclusion. He had the keys to the crashed vehicle, admitted to driving earlier that evening, and showed signs of impairment during field sobriety exercises. When considered collectively, these facts gave rise to a lawful arrest.
Ultimately, the court reversed the trial court’s suppression order and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that the arrest met constitutional requirements and was supported by sufficient, reliable evidence.
Consult a Skilled Tampa DUI Defense Attorney Today
If you are facing DUI charges in Florida, the consequences can be significant, which is why you need a defense attorney who understands how to challenge every facet of the State’s case. At Hanlon Law, our experienced Tampa DUI defense attorneys are committed to protecting your rights at every stage of the process. Call our office at 813-435-6200 or fill out our online form to schedule a consultation.