Dominguez vs State | No Reasonable Suspicion for DUI Stop

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *