The appellate court produced the following findings of reality and conclusions of law in reversing the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress.
Particulars: An officer responded to a domestic disturbance get in touch with, saw the defendant driving away in a
automobile which matched the description of the automobile in the get in touch with. The officer initiated a targeted targeted site visitors quit and ordered defendant back
to the scene of the domestic incident. At the scene, the officer spoke with the girlfriend of defendant, who had created the 911 get in touch with, and
came to the conclusion that no laws had been broken. At the scene, the officer noticed that defendant parked his automobile
“a tiny crooked,” that he smelled of alcohol, and that his speech was slurred. The officer arrested
the defendant for DUI, and the defendant’s probation was for that explanation revoked. The defendant filed
a motion to suppress. The motion was denied by the trial court. The defendant appealed arguing that the Circuit Court committed reversible error
“because no cost-effective suspicion to quit [him] arose from a report of a domestic disturbance
get in touch with. ”
The District Court of Appeal agreed with defendant’s position and reversed the circuit court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress and the
revocation of probation, noting that a domestic disturbance speak to “does not necessarily contain
any crime, and absolutely nothing at all in the dispatch informed him that a crime had occurred at the residence,” nor
did the officer observe anything that which recommended that a crime had occurred.