Probation Violation | Technical Violation

Probation Violation | Technical Violation

In Mobley v. State, The 4th District Court of Appeal held that a warrant alleging a technical violation of probation is not a warrant issued pursuant to Florida Statute 901.02.  Accordingly, with no a notice to seem or an arrest on the probation violation, a warrant alleging a technical violation is insufficient to toll the probationary [&#8230]
Published at Wed, 04 May 2016 03:42:17 +0000

Vehicle Immobilization for Florida DUI| Florida Statute 316.193(6)(a)

Vehicle Immobilization | 316.193(6)(a)
Automobile Immobilization | 316.193(six)(a)

Car Immobilization for Florida DUI| Florida Statute 316.193(six)(a)

Penalties for Driving Under the Influence Car immobilization is one of the penalties for driving beneath the influence in Florida.  While the statutory language says that car immobilization is mandatory, there are several exceptions. The penalties for driving beneath the influence are identified in Florida Statute 316.193. Pursuant to Florida Statute 316.193(six)(d), the court should […]

The post Automobile Immobilization for Florida DUI| Florida Statute 316.193(6)(a) appeared initial on DUI MOTIONS.

Published at Sat, 28 Nov 2015 23:18:55 +0000

Traffic Stop Outside of Jurisdiction | Motion to Suppress

Stop Outside of Jurisdiction | Motion to Suppress

Can a Police Officer Stop Me Outdoors of His Jurisdiction? The basic answer to this query is no. Nevertheless, as with every single other legal principle, there are many exceptions. A single of the most frequently recognized exceptions is the doctrine of hot pursuit. The doctrine of hot pursuit has been codified into Florida Statute 901.25 which […]
Published at Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:14:05 +0000

Motion to Suppress Handgun

Motion to Suppress Handgun
Motion to Suppress Handgun

Motion to Suppress Handgun
Jurisdiction: Wake County, North Carolina Issues: 1) Does a BOLO which contains a description of the wrong car the wrong individual give a detective probable cause to pull over a vehicle when the driver has broken no traffic laws and is not behaving in a suspicious manner? 2) Is there be a presumption that a detective knows […]
Published at Sun, 26 Jul 2015 20:52:38 +0000

People v. Guthrie

 photoPeople v. Guthrie

In this case, defendant’s vehicle was stopped by a police officer after the officer observed the vehicle driving past a stop sign without stopping. After defendant failed field sobriety tests and a breath analysis revealed that her blood alcohol level was over the legal limit, defendant was arrested and charged with failing to stop at a stop sign and driving while intoxicated. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence resulting from the initial stop, asserting a lack of probable cause for the initial stop, given that the stop sign was not properly registered. The order of the County Court granting defendant’s motion to suppress is reversed, defendant’s motion to suppress is denied, and the case is remitted for further proceedings, where, if a traffic stop is based upon a police officer’s objectively reasonable but mistaken view of the law, as here, the stop is constitutional.
Published at 04/07/2015

 

 

 

 

Cronin v. Commissioner of Probation

police lights photo
Photo by davidsonscott15


Cronin v. Commissioner of Probation

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for operating a motor automobile under the influence of alcohol and negligent operation of a motor vehicle. At some point in the course of the booking process, petitioner was provided written Miranda warnings and invoked his proper to stay silent. Petitioner contends that the prosecutor’s cross-examination and closing argument constituted constitutionally forbidden commentary on his post-Miranda silence. The district court’s denial of habeas relief is affirmed, where, even if the Massachusetts Appeals Court misapplied the Doyle v. Ohio rule proscribing the prosecution’s use of a defendant’s post-Miranda silence in a criminal case, any comment on the petitioner’s silence here was harmless when regarded in the context of the trial as a entire.
Published at 04/07/2015

Violation of Due Process | Exclusionary Rule

Violation of Due Method | Exclusionary Rule

Added State Protections When drafting a motion to suppress do not neglect that states are generally permitted to enact laws that grant a defendant far more protection than is afforded in the United States Constitution. In Michigan Division of State Police vs. Sitz, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari jurisdiction and ruled that sobriety checkpoints […]

The post Violation of Due Approach | Exclusionary Rule appeared very first on DUI MOTIONS.

Published at Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:22:40 +0000

Dominguez vs State | No Reasonable Suspicion for DUI Stop

No Reasonable Suspicion DUI
No Reasonable Suspicion DUI

The appellate court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law in reversing the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress.

Details: An officer responded to a domestic disturbance contact, saw the defendant driving away in an automobile which matched the description of the vehicle in 911 telephone call. The officer initiated a traffic stop and ordered defendant back to the scene of the domestic incident. At the scene, the officer spoke with the girlfriend of defendant, who had initiated the 911 emergency call, and arrived at the conclusion that no laws had been broken. At the scene, the officer noticed that defendant parked his automobile “a little 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 reason 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 the officer had no reason to suspect a DUI from a report of a domestic disturbance

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 contact does not necessarily involve any crime, and nothing at all in the dispatch informed him that a crime had occurred at the residence, nor did the officer observe something that which suggested that a crime had occurred.

For additional information regarding a motion to suppress please visit: Criminal Attorney Motion Bank

Omnibus Motion to Suppress DUI| Form Motion to Suppress DUI

Omnibus Motion to Suppress DUI| Form Motion to Suppress DUI

Omnibus Motion to Suppress This is simply a checkbox motion to suppress which attorneys were using in District Court DUI cases in North Carolina. A defendant doesn’t have a right to discovery in District Court cases. However, the legislature passed a law mandating that all motions to suppress be filed pretrial. As a result, it […]

The post Omnibus Motion to Suppress DUI| Form Motion to Suppress DUI appeared first on DUI MOTIONS.

Published at Tue, 07 Apr 2015 02:49:17 +0000

Warrantless Search of a Hotel Room | Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Warrantless Search of a Hotel Space | Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Broward Sheriff’s Office detectives received a tip from an informant that an individual was dealing drugs out of a hotel room.  Detectives went to the hotel with no a warrant to knock on the door and make speak to with the alleged dealer.  Did detectives violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution when the detectives entered defendant’s hotel room right after defendant voluntarily opened the door in response to their “knock”?  (8th Cir. […]Published at Tue, 31 Mar 2015 03:55:17 +0000