"Reasonable suspision"

Yurt said:
thank you, thats all i needed and as much as jarod is wrong about things...he is right on with this one....

why not just admit usf is wrong? i cited case law, yet i haven't seen you call him out on his assertion that what i cited was not law. he keeps hounding the statute.....why don't you call him out on that?
Click to expand...

Have you found that Statute that supports your assertion, yet??
 
Yurt said:
thank you, thats all i needed and as much as jarod is wrong about things...he is right on with this one....

why not just admit usf is wrong? i cited case law, yet i haven't seen you call him out on his assertion that what i cited was not law. he keeps hounding the statute.....why don't you call him out on that?
Click to expand...

A Central Florida DUI can be very complex. Each DUI has multiple phases. The phases are stop, detention, field sobriety exercises, arrest and testing. During a Florida DUI investigation if a mistake is made in any of these phases it can greatly reduce the strength of The States DUI case. An experienced Central Florida DUI attorney will be able to spot potential mistakes in the investigation and challenge them in court.

If the Florida DUI stop is illegal then everything flowing from the stop can be suppressed including the breath test results and field sobriety exercises. Because of the impact an illegal stop has on the case this is a heavily litigated area creating a great deal of case law about what is a legal Florida DUI stop. An experienced Central Florida DUI lawyer is familiar with stop case law. A Police officer may reasonably detain citizen temporarily in investigatory stop if officer has reasonable suspicion that person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit crime; investigatory stop requires well-founded articulable suspicion of criminal activity, and mere suspicion is not enough to support stop Popple v. State 626 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1993). As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred Whren v. United States, 517 US 806 (1996).

The next phase of a Florida DUI investigation is the detention. During a Florida DUI detention the police are trying to acquire reasonable suspicion of impairment. This is a transition in the investigation. The reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the stop is not necessarily adequate for reasonable suspicion of impairment. The driving pattern may contribute to the reasonable suspicion of impairment. A knowledgeable Central Florida DUI attorney will be familiar with these issues.

The State Attorney’s Office in Florida frequently relies on the case Origi for the standards of reasonable suspicion in a Florida DUI case. In Origi, high rate of speed combined with an odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes was sufficient reasonable suspicion to request field sobriety exercises during a DUI investigation Origi v. State, 912 So. 2d 69, 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) . If the police officer is able to accumulate reasonable suspicion during the Florida DUI investigation they can request the accused to do field sobriety exercises.

A common misconception is that the accused has to do the pre arrest field sobriety exercises during a Florida DUI investigation. If the accused refuses to take the field sobriety exercises, the officer should warn them of the consequences. One consequence is that the officer can testify that the accused refused to take the field sobriety exercises during the DUI investigation. If the officer does not warn the accused of the consequences after the refusal, it can create a safe harbor State v. Taylor 648 So. 2d 701 ( Fla 1995). If the refusal of Florida DUI field sobriety exercises are considered a safe harbor then the refusal of the exercises does not come in. This can be damaging to The State’s DUI case because without field sobriety exercises or a refusal of the exercises it appears to the jury that the exercises were never requested. One consideration with the Florida DUI field sobriety exercise is that often times if an individual has good balance and coordination or is a frequent drinker they may not appear intoxicated at .08 or slightly higher to a lay observer.
 
Yurt said:
thank you, thats all i needed and as much as jarod is wrong about things...he is right on with this one....

why not just admit usf is wrong? i cited case law, yet i haven't seen you call him out on his assertion that what i cited was not law. he keeps hounding the statute.....why don't you call him out on that?
Click to expand...

Excuse me? You want me to "call usf out"? Is that my job???

USF's argument is his own. I commented on a cops behavior if he pulls someone over for DUI VS he pulls someone over for another reason i.e. his tail light is out; and then smells alcohol. They are two very different stops. If you have been weaving and when you get pulled over a cop smells alcohol he is going to be attempting to get you out of your car...period. In the second senario he will go through a few more hoops...but if he has reasonable suspicion (subjective) he is going to be trying to get you out of your car as well.

I get USF's desire to have you commit to proving the negative. You think you have done so...I understand why you think you have. I think you are both splitting a hair and you both ought to just quit.
 
Ice Dancer;685609]Excuse me? You want me to "call usf out"? Is that my job???
Click to expand...

yes....it sure seems like it....iirc the last few arguments usf and i get into, you come to the rescue. and an admiral job btw....you make sense.

USF's argument is his own. I commented on a cops behavior if he pulls someone over for DUI VS he pulls someone over for another reason i.e. his tail light is out; and then smells alcohol. They are two very different stops. If you have been weaving and when you get pulled over a cop smells alcohol he is going to be attempting to get you out of your car...period. In the second senario he will go through a few more hoops...but if he has reasonable suspicion (subjective) he is going to be trying to get you out of your car as well.
Click to expand...

again....my point and jarod's point....is that smell (light) alone is not enough....

what don't you understand about this?
I get USF's desire to have you commit to proving the negative. You think you have done so...I understand why you think you have. I think you are both splitting a hair and you both ought to just quit.[
Click to expand...

i haven't proved a negative....at all....read the law
 
Yurt said:
yes....it sure seems like it....iirc the last few arguments usf and i get into, you come to the rescue. and an admiral job btw....you make sense.



again....my point and jarod's point....is that smell (light) alone is not enough....

what don't you understand about this?


i haven't proved a negative....at all....read the law
Click to expand...

You haven't cited any law.
You've cited a couple of cases; but one or two cases does not make the law.
Cite the DUI laws, for the State of Florida.
 
Jarod said:
you are lying, again! I never said a cop had to prove anything.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming the following are not your words?


"What happened to innocent until proven gulity? So if an officer belives you voilated a law, he then has a right to strip you of your Constitutional rights?"

Now, I don't know about your illiterate stupid ass, but most rational non-retarded people can clearly see this is what you said EXACTLY! It's what your point has been all along!
 
Dixie said:
Are you claiming the following are not your words?


"What happened to innocent until proven gulity? So if an officer belives you voilated a law, he then has a right to strip you of your Constitutional rights?"

Now, I don't know about your illiterate stupid ass, but most rational non-retarded people can clearly see this is what you said EXACTLY! It's what your point has been all along!
Click to expand...

Where did I say Cop had to prove anything?
 
God Jarhead, you are being so fucking stupid in this thread, it surpasses your normal level of stupid by a mile! I didn't think that was possible! You claim something isn't the law, it's show to you in the US Code verbatim, and you come back with some silliness about your alien babysitter says it isn't! Then you basically say a cop has to prove you're guilty, but want to know where you said anything about a cop having to prove you're guilty! Are you even reading the shit you're typing at this point?
 
Dixie said:
God Jarhead, you are being so fucking stupid in this thread, it surpasses your normal level of stupid by a mile! I didn't think that was possible! You claim something isn't the law, it's show to you in the US Code verbatim, and you come back with some silliness about your alien babysitter says it isn't! Then you basically say a cop has to prove you're guilty, but want to know where you said anything about a cop having to prove you're guilty! Are you even reading the shit you're typing at this point?
Click to expand...

Its you who say I said those things, I did not.

I never said a Cop has to prove you are guilty...

I never said that carrying your green card was not a requirement.
 
Jarod said:
Its you who say I said those things, I did not.

I never said a Cop has to prove you are guilty...

I never said that carrying your green card was not a requirement.
Click to expand...

I posted what you said, dumbfuck! You wanted to continue arguing with Damo about carrying your green card, AFTER he showed you where the US Code specifies it! Then you wanted to rant at me about cops trashing your Constitutional rights because you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty... THEN claimed you didn't say that, after you just said it! Now you are claiming you didn't say any of this and I'm making it all up! I think you must be losing your goddamn mind...what little mind you had!
 
Dixie said:
I posted what you said, dumbfuck! You wanted to continue arguing with Damo about carrying your green card, AFTER he showed you where the US Code specifies it! Then you wanted to rant at me about cops trashing your Constitutional rights because you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty... THEN claimed you didn't say that, after you just said it! Now you are claiming you didn't say any of this and I'm making it all up! I think you must be losing your goddamn mind...what little mind you had!
Click to expand...

How about Sons of Confederate Veterans all perish from this Earth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top