Lexplug logoLexplug

State v. Ameqrane

District Court of Appeal of Florida
2010 WL 2010804, 39 So. 3d 339, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7037 (2010)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct field sobriety tests when a lawful traffic stop for an infraction is combined with other indicia of impairment, such as the odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and the driver's admission to consuming alcohol.


Facts:

  • Around 4:00 a.m. on November 14, 2008, Officer Juan Mello observed Othmane Ameqrane's vehicle speeding.
  • Officer Mello initiated a traffic stop of Ameqrane's vehicle.
  • Upon approaching the vehicle and speaking with Ameqrane, the officer detected the odor of alcohol on Ameqrane's breath.
  • Officer Mello also observed that Ameqrane's eyes were bloodshot and glassy.
  • During their conversation, Ameqrane admitted to the officer that he had consumed alcohol.

Procedural Posture:

  • The State charged Othmane Ameqrane in a Florida trial court with driving under the influence (DUI) and escape from law enforcement.
  • Ameqrane filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the field sobriety testing.
  • After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Ameqrane's motion, ruling that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the tests.
  • The State, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's suppression order to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal; Ameqrane is the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a police officer have reasonable suspicion to require a driver to perform field sobriety tests based on the combination of a traffic violation (speeding), the odor of alcohol, the driver's bloodshot and glassy eyes, and the driver's admission to consuming alcohol?


Opinions:

Majority - Villanti, Judge

Yes. A police officer possesses the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct field sobriety tests under these circumstances. The court reasoned that the purpose of a DUI investigation, including sobriety tests, is to confirm or deny an officer's initial suspicion to determine if probable cause exists for an arrest. Citing precedent like State v. Taylor and Origi v. State, the court held that the totality of the circumstances—speeding late at night, the odor of alcohol, glassy and bloodshot eyes, and an admission to drinking—provided more than enough basis for a reasonable suspicion of impairment. Therefore, the officer's request for Ameqrane to perform field sobriety tests was a reasonable inquiry and did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the established standard for reasonable suspicion in DUI investigations in Florida, clarifying that direct observation of erratic driving is not required to justify field sobriety tests. It solidifies the principle that a combination of a standard traffic violation and multiple sensory indicators of alcohol consumption (smell, sight) plus an admission, is sufficient. This provides a clear, practical guideline for law enforcement to expand the scope of a traffic stop and prevents lower courts from imposing a higher, near-probable-cause standard for initiating sobriety testing.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query State v. Ameqrane (2010) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for State v. Ameqrane