"Reasonable suspision"

i think legion and usf are confused....you need probable cause to arrest, you need reasonable suspicion to have the driver take a sobreity test which is what gives you probable cause
 
To request that a driver submit to field sobriety tests, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is driving under the influence. In State v. Taylor, 648 So. 2d 701, 703-04 (Fla. 1995), the supreme court provided an example of what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” sufficient to conduct a DUI investigation:

Page 4

When [the defendant] exited his car, he staggered and exhibited slurred speech, watery, bloodshot eyes, and a strong odor of alcohol. This, combined with a high rate of speed on the highway, was more than enough to provide [the officer] with reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed, i.e., DUI. The officer was entitled under section 901.151 to conduct a reasonable inquiry to confirm or deny that probable cause existed to make an arrest. [The officer's] request that [the defendant] perform field sobriety tests was reasonable under the circumstances and did not violate any Fourth Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

http://www.miami-criminal-lawyer.net/caselaw/2010/05/page/2/

hence, just a little odor alone would not suffice.....

now, admit you're wrong usf :)
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And do you have anything that is newer then 1995, seeing as how their must have been thousands of cases since then.
Click to expand...

that case is seminole in florida, it is still valid law, hence why the Opinion filed May 21, 2010....still cited it...

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant,
v.
OTHMANE AMEQRANE, Appellee.

Case No. 2D09-3018.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District


now, man up and admit you're wrong...
 
Yurt said:
that case is seminole in florida, it is still valid law, hence why the Opinion filed May 21, 2010....still cited it...

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant,
v.
OTHMANE AMEQRANE, Appellee.

Case No. 2D09-3018.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District


now, man up and admit you're wrong...
Click to expand...

Check my previous post; because 901.151 is about the Stop and Frisk law.

Now grow up and stop whining when you lose.
 
Jarod said:
Again I dont care what you belive, and you clearly do not understand the difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspision".

I never claimed a police officer needed to prove guilt.

PC and RS are two different standards that allow police officers to do different things.
Click to expand...


That's what I said, dumbass! And yes, you have been repeatedly trying to make the argument that a LEO has to "prove" something in order to take action. A prosecutor has to "prove" the charges in court, the police officer simply has to have reasonable suspicion and that often gives him the probable cause to make an arrest.

And I don't care that you don't care what I think.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Check my previous post; because 901.151 is about the Stop and Frisk law.

Now grow up and stop whining when you lose.
Click to expand...

?

i find case law that says you're wrong and i lose?

you're a hack...you even stupidly tried to make it out that the case i provided was old...i didn't expect you to be honest and admit you're wrong
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And do you have anything that is newer then 1995, seeing as how their must have been thousands of cases since then.

By the way; 901.151 refers to the Stop and Frisk law.
Do you have anything pertaining to a DUI stop??
Click to expand...

lmao...i just noticed you asked for something pertaining to dui stop....hey moron....that case was ONLY about dui

i give you a case that cites florida SC and i'm wrong, but you're right

:lol:

hack
 
Dixie said:
That's what I said, dumbass! And yes, you have been repeatedly trying to make the argument that a LEO has to "prove" something in order to take action. A prosecutor has to "prove" the charges in court, the police officer simply has to have reasonable suspicion and that often gives him the probable cause to make an arrest.

And I don't care that you don't care what I think.
Click to expand...

reasonable suspicion does not give probable cause

:palm:
 
Yurt said:
?

i find case law that says you're wrong and i lose?

you're a hack...you even stupidly tried to make it out that the case i provided was old...i didn't expect you to be honest and admit you're wrong
Click to expand...


You tried to use a statuate that does not address a DUI arrest; but instead is abou the Officers right to Stop and Frisk.

I also never really expected you to acknowledge that all you had was a clue about what you were attempting to present; but that was all you truly had, A CLUE.

I know it's hard for you to except the idea that many others actually know more then you do; but it would be the first step in your recovery.

An ego is a terrible thing and in your case, it could be terminal.

I had to add an edit; because Yurt felt that he needed to show his angst, by givine me some neg rep.

I"m heartbroken - HEARTBROKEN I SAY.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
lmao...i just noticed you asked for something pertaining to dui stop....hey moron....that case was ONLY about dui

i give you a case that cites florida SC and i'm wrong, but you're right

:lol:

hack
Click to expand...

"...i'm wrong, but you're right"

Your acceptance of the truth, even in this one incident, could be the first step to your long recovery.
Thanks
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You tried to use a statuate that does not address a DUI arrest; but instead is abou the Officers right to Stop and Frisk.

I also never really expected you to acknowledge that all you had was a clue about what you were attempting to present; but that was all you truly had, A CLUE.

I know it's hard for you to except the idea that many others actually know more then you do; but it would be the first step in your recovery.

An ego is a terrible thing and in your case, it could be terminal.
Click to expand...

what a liar...the entire CASE, not statute, is solely about a DUI stop

To request that a driver submit to field sobriety tests, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is driving under the influence. In State v. Taylor, 648 So. 2d 701, 703-04 (Fla. 1995), the supreme court provided an example of what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” sufficient to conduct a DUI investigation:
Page 4

When [the defendant] exited his car, he staggered and exhibited slurred speech, watery, bloodshot eyes, and a strong odor of alcohol. This, combined with a high rate of speed on the highway, was more than enough to provide [the officer] with reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed, i.e., DUI. The officer was entitled under section 901.151 to conduct a reasonable inquiry to confirm or deny that probable cause existed to make an arrest. [The officer's] request that [the defendant] perform field sobriety tests was reasonable under the circumstances and did not violate any Fourth Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

not only are you stupid, but you're a dishonest petty hack who can't admit when he or in your case, she is wrong....
 
Yurt said:
what a liar...the entire CASE, not statute, is solely about a DUI stop



not only are you stupid, but you're a dishonest petty hack who can't admit when he or in your case, she is wrong....
Click to expand...

Then show the DUI Statuates that support your assertion; unless you've discovered that the way it's written makes you appear to be a bigger fool then you're already making of yourself.

By the way; anytime you have to resort to attempt to denigrate, by making gender substitution, it's an admission that you know you've lost and are only trying to find a way out of the corner you've painted yourself into.

Just think how easy you could claim victory.
All you have to do, is cite the Florida State Law that supports your assertion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top