Florida DUI

The Florida version of the Fair DUI flyer is here:

Fair-DUI-FL-Flyer-1

Fair-DUI-FL-Flyer-2


There are substantial concerns about fairness in the Florida DUI laws and how they’re applied.

Some of the biggest issues are:

  • Use of the unreliable Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test device
  • The 8-hour rule, keeping accused drivers from getting their own timely and reliable blood test
  • The short 10-day period before the license hearing
  • Inconsistent use of video
  • The practice of charging and prosecuting drivers who blow a legal BAC

We will write more about these in the future.

Share Button

49 thoughts on “Florida DUI

  1. Robert Williams

    First off: I am proud of what you are doing. I brings hope. Second: I wanted to download the PDF for the Florida Flyer but there was no link for it. There is a link for some other States, but not Florida. Please forward a PDF so as I may make use of it. Thank you.

    Robert D. Williams
    Veteran, US Navy

    Reply
  2. Keith

    I was wondering if you can just copy the Flyer, Drivers license, Registration, and Insurance Card and show them that of do you need the original items? I couldn’t find anything on this. Then you can just hold the one item up to the window. Would you know if this would be legal?

    Reply
    1. Alex

      You are correct. It is a violation of the “wire-tapping” laws in Florida, as a precaution you should include “I am audio and visually recording this encounter” therefore you have given the officer a notice of implied consent if he further wishes to speak to you.

      Reply
      1. Joe

        You are wrong! One doesn’t have to advise a cop that he’s being recorded. In public and they are a public employee. PERIOD! Please don’t write falsehoods because it’s the dumb cops that read this s— and then illegally arrest people for things like this. You must remember that cops usually don’t know basic laws that they are to enforce.

        You can LEGALLY FILM A COP in the State of Florida without his knowing.

        Reply
        1. Stephen

          The commenter said “Audio and Visually recording this encounter”. Florida is a one party consent state for video recording, but a TWO party consent state for audio recording. Thus the original posters comment remains valid.

      2. randallreality

        i cant find anything on wire tapping laws in Florida under the statutes and constitution of Florida when i put in wire tapping laws nothing comes up or it said no laws found .

        Reply
      3. Cintron

        No such thing as wiretapping in Florida that’s a different subject your first amendment allows you to record public servants law enforcement in the State of Florida look it up. That is your constitutional right.

        Reply
    2. mike Davis

      Not in public
      You can record anyone fir any reason at any time in public
      Especially a public servant
      1st amendment freedom of press
      Anyone in public has no expectation of privacy anywhere in public, especially a public servant.
      You do not have to notify you are recording video and or audio
      In all 50 states. ..

      Reply
  3. Keith

    “wire-tapping” laws in Florida, should be just between one or two people in private and should not apply to public areas, on a road it should not apply. If others are able to hear it then the law does not apply. Also instead of just saying it is illegal supply the law that says that it illegal, if there is no Status or law then it is not illegal.

    Reply
    1. James Kannard

      Florida Statutes, section 934.03(d) states: ”It is lawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.”

      Reply
    2. Ern

      This is true. The Local Government is violating our rights with traffic cameras that are recording all the time not just if and when a law is broken or accident has happened. This is a double standard.

      Reply
      1. James

        Traffic cameras record video only. The wiretapping laws only apply to recording audio,and when you have an expectation of privacy. Anyone can record video in public. You are in a public place when driving, so you have no expectation of privacy.

        Reply
  4. Keith

    I would suggest to read the whole Statute. if it readily accessible to the general public, like in a park or on the street or in a restaurant. This is talking about electronic but includes the oral part, if you are standing on a street corner and you, or anyone else can hear what a person is saying then you can legally record or film it. The key part is “readily accessible to the general public” Now if two people are talking in a car and you can’t hear it and you put a recorder or a bug in it to hear what is going on then it is illegal if you tell anyone or use what you hear. You have no rights to privacy when you are in the general public, even if you think you do you don’t.

    (h) It shall not be unlawful under ss. 934.03-934.09 for any person:
    1. To intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public.
    2. To intercept any radio communication which is transmitted:
    a. By any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;
    b. By any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including any police or fire communications system, readily accessible to the general public;
    c. By a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or
    d. By any marine or aeronautical communications system

    Reply
  5. Rob

    Just a word of caution – this is NOT a get out of jail free card nor a 100% sure way to avoid negative interaction with law enforcement. In fact it may cause you more problems than necessary, especially if you’re not impaired and trying to “prove a point.” Please note that “a driver who is lawfully stopped for a DUI checkpoint is under a legal obligation to respond to an officer’s requests for certain information and documents, and the driver’s refusal to respond to these requests may constitute the misdemeanor offense of obstructing or opposing an officer. If a driver engages in obstructive conduct, in violation of section 843.02, then standard police detention and arrest procedures, rather than checkpoint guidelines, would govern the officer’s handling of the situation.”

    “Moreover, a driver who is lawfully stopped for a DUI check-point is under a legal obligation to respond to an officer’s requests for certain information and documents, and the driver’s refusal to respond to these requests may constitute the misdemeanor offense of obstructing or opposing an officer.”

    Rinaldo v. State 4thD.C.A. (May 16,2001)

    Reply
    1. wredlich Post author

      Correct. The flyer is certainly not bulletproof. There’s no perfect solution.

      As for Rinaldo, a driver using the flyer is responding to the officer’s requests for documents. Any document requested should be pressed up against the window for the officer to see.

      As for “information” requests, the driver has asserted his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. The officer is not allowed to ask any questions after that. Period.

      Reply
      1. Phillip Freeman

        The legal terms used to conceal the “Driver License” and various other “This State” scams are nefarious, dubious and lie in want of ethical attributes surely. Terms like “driver” “operator” “motor vehicle” “traffic” et.al. are all related to the regulated act of TRANSPORTATION, which is COMMERCIAL activity. One need not have a license in order to move by auto mobile from one point to another privately while not for hire or engaged in commercial activity called transportation. It is a revenue generating scam. The use of a trust styled legal mechanism by way of the MCO/MSO is inducement to say the least and fraud on its face I feel. How about addressing these issues?
        Respectfully in truth and liberty,
        Phillip Freeman

        Reply
    1. wredlich Post author

      Not aware of any sticker. We used to mail flyers to people but there were not that many requests and we fell behind so we’ve stopped doing that.

      Reply
  6. Andrew McGahen

    is there one for Pennsylvania and Maryland. Thank you very much for doing this. For years I have felt that checkpoints a violation of our 4th amendment rights. I also feel that the one should have a right to refuse the tests due to the fact that one has the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. I received a dui while sober at 10 am in the mooring for refusing to allow the police officer to search my car. So obviously i was hiding something which I was not. However they said that I walked the line wrong and thus i must be under the influence. They took me the hospital and had me tested and found that I had smoked pot (days before) and thus i received a dui tier 1.

    Reply
  7. Andrew McGahen

    This is exactly why I went to school for history and poli sci. I wanted to make a difference and stand up for the constitution which i don’t feel many even respect or read anymore. Thank you!

    Reply
  8. Gregg H

    Law school professor attorney Curt Benson says you’re wrong on the law.

    http://ksn.com/2015/02/11/lawyers-signs-raise-questions-about-dui-checkpoints/

    We spoke with a Cooley Law School professor, attorney Curt Benson. He said this effort is not new. And, it’s clear Redlich is using this as a marketing effort for his book and his practice, Benson said.

    Benson also pointed out a problem with the printed signs. He did a spot check on Redlich’s signs created in Florida. The card Redlich has on his web site states “I do not have to you my license.” However, just six months ago, July 1, 2014, the law in Florida was changed from using the word “display” to the phrase “you must present or submit (your license) upon demand of a police officer.”

    “I think the legislature struck the word display on purpose. The overall point is, his card is already archaic. There’s no way to update these things,” Benson said. He went on to say the law is very dynamic. It’s always changing.

    Reply
    1. wredlich Post author

      “And, it’s clear Redlich is using this as a marketing effort for his book and his practice, Benson said.”

      It’s clear Benson has never bothered to investigate this spurious allegation. While the publicity has generated about 1000 book sales, I make about 50 cents a copy (33 cents on Kindle, 80 cents on paperback). Math may not be his strong point but that works out to about $500.

      As for my practice, I’m semi-retired and this hasn’t generated a single case. I have gotten some odd calls on issues like autism rights in Pennsylvania, but no actual work.

      Reply
    2. wredlich Post author

      “I think the legislature struck the word display on purpose.”

      Yes. They changed the wording not because of my flyers, but in anticipation of people having documents on smart phones, which might well need to be handed over. Professor Benson would have to read the legislative history to know that, but maybe they don’t cover that in his courses.

      Reply
      1. Gregg H

        Thank you for the replies and information. Here is another article about this that you might be interested in. Another professor who has a profound misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. How is this possible?

        http://www.alligator.org/news/local/article_af7d0104-bcb7-11e4-9bfa-ff59c21ce1d9.html

        “Frederick Shenkman, an emeritus UF professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminology and Law, said that while police have the right to require drivers to speak to them, he thinks courts should provide more input on the issue.”

        How is it possible that an educated professor could believe that police have the power to detain you indefinitely if you don’t speak?

        Reply
        1. wredlich Post author

          Yes we saw that before. It’s possible the reporter misinterpreted what he said. Possible.

  9. James

    Webster’s Dictionary provides the following as one definition of the verb “present”:
    “to offer to view : show”
    Therefore, because Florida law still allows drivers to “present” or submit their license to police, I (a non-lawyer) would think that by offering to let them view it and showing it to them, I have complied with the law.

    Reply
    1. Sebastian

      Absolutely right! To “present” your identification (i.e. DL, and so on) I believe that by me visibly showing it to him, I have fulfilled that statute. I’m glad you said that James and replied in concurrence W. Redlich.

      Reply
  10. Karma

    Would it be ok to put something like “Please understand that I respect the police, but I also understand my rights.” on the sign? Maybe as a way for them not to go crazy.

    Reply
  11. Alex

    What if the officer asks you to step out of the vehicle what would be the best way to handle the situation?

    Reply
    1. wredlich Post author

      For most people the best thing is to obey the order and let your lawyer deal with that later in court.

      Reply
  12. Robert Somerset

    A driver is under no legal obligation to answer any of a police officer’s questions. All that is legally required is for a person to provide a driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. Telling the police “I want my lawyer, I’m going to remain silent” is the best response to any of their questions, that’s it. Of course a police officer’s orders should always be followed.

    Reply
  13. Greg

    If I need your services, do you practice in Brevard County Florida? If not do you have an attorney in your network that does?

    Reply
  14. Gw

    I think probably you do need to hand over your license if they demand it. The old 322.15 just said “display” license. The changes to “present” or “submit”, especially “submit” indicates yielding or giving over to.

    Reply
  15. kelly

    I recently had an officer pull me over and fabricated a statement that I was swerving and crossed the fog line. passed all field tests and was still arrested.is there a defense against un lawful officers?

    Reply
    1. cg

      Kelly, if you go to court it would seem to have the police produce the video. If the police car video doesn’t match the officer’s statement, that would be in your favor. Check with an attorney.

      Reply
  16. Beach Boui

    Kelly, what happened to you (making up a reason to pull you over) probably happens hundreds of times each day in America. It has happened to me more than once. In court, it would be your word against his. If you were found to be over the limit for alcohol, you had better be able to prove he lied about why he stopped you. Otherwise, your argument will likely have little sympathy with the court.

    Reply
  17. cg

    What is Florida law for giving a heads up and ability to not enter the checkpoint? Do they put cones up, are they supposed to have a certain amount of spacing between cones so you can turn off to an alternate route to not be detained, etc.?

    Reply
  18. John

    Is this flyer strictly designed for check-points or can it also be used for traffic stops? I was pulled over and was questioned in detail and given a field sobriety test because I was told that I was swerving. Furthermore, I do suffer from a speech impediment with a slight lisp.

    I feel that I was unlawfully detained because of my speech impediment and the fact that I might have slightly swerved into the other lane by accident. The officer put me though every test imaginable it seemed that he was determined that I was intoxicated! Although I was totally sober, I thought I was going to receive a DUI for sure. I wasted a good 45 minutes on this traffic stop and was ultimately let go with no citations.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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