CT-XX-793XXX-XXX NO CONVICTION AS CHARGED

On June 1, 2011, at approximately 1:04 am, a Temple Terrace Police Officer was on duty and dispatched in reference to a battery that had just occurred. Upon arriving on the scene, the Officer observed a vehicle stopped in front of the residence. As he approached the vehicle, another officer advised him that the front seat passenger was involved in the battery. The Officer was also advised that the vehicle had attempted to leave the residence upon his arrival. At that time, the officer approached the driver side of the vehicle and made contact with the driver, the Defendant. Upon making contact, the Officer observed that the vehicle was running and in gear. The officer advised the Defendant to place the vehicle in park and give him the keys. As the Officer spoke to the Defendant he observed that her eyes were glassy, watery and bloodshot. Her speech was slurred and thick-tongued, and her movements appeared slow and lethargic. He also detected a strong odor of alcohol emanating from her breath. At that point, the Officer repositioned his vehicle in order to record the incident and placed a piece of duct tape on the flat level ground in front of the patrol vehicle for use in field sobriety exercises. The Officer then made contact with the Defendant and advised her to exit her vehicle and walk to the front of his vehicle. As the Defendant exited the vehicle, she appeared to be unsteady. Once out of the vehicle and on her feet, she appeared to sway from side to side and from front to back. The officer requested the Defendant to perform field sobriety exercises, which she consented. The field sobriety exercises were explained and demonstrated to the Defendant. After the Defendant performed poorly on the field sobriety exercises, she was placed under arrest for DUI. The Officer read her Florida’s Implied Consent law and requested a breath sample. The Defendant refused to provide a breath sample. A check of the Defendant’s driving history showed a prior conviction for DUI in February 2010. Results: The firm filed a motion to suppress based on an illegal detention of the Defendant. On the date the motion was to be heard, the State Attorney dropped the DUI charge.