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.