I can probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve convinced a court to reverse itself on a previously made ruling in a case. However, in an Orlando case, that is exactly what occurred.
To be fair, this was a unique situation where the judge who originally denied the Motion to Suppress rotated into another division. The newly assigned judge looked at the same evidence and decided that the prior judge had decided wrongly and reversed the ruling. Even with a new judge, this is extremely rare.
In State v. Birch, 32 Fla.L.Weekly Supp. 142b (Fla. Orange Cty. Court, 2024), the facts demonstrated that an Officer Debottis responded to a traffic accident. Officer Debottis testified he observed a vehicle in the roadway and two on the side of the road. He made contact with Birch and observed him bleeding from his right hand and saw blood in the car. Officer Debottis did not say where he made contact with the Birch or if he was in a car when he arrived. He also did not state where the blood in the car was located. It is unclear from the testimony how Officer Debottis knew Birch was driving or what the accident investigation revealed. Officer Debottis did testify he told Officer Rideaux the car Birch was operating was the only mobile vehicle at that time and tow trucks were on the way.
Although that statement may be sufficient to provide Officer Rideaux with enough information to establish that the Defendant was driving, the statement itself is not supported by any predicate facts indicating how Officer Debottis knew it was the car the Defendant was operating.
Officer Debottis did testify he smelled alcohol coming from Birch’s mouth, but he did not relay that information to Officer Rideaux. Officer Debottis’ statement that he believed the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol is a conclusion and not supported by articulable facts. He did not convey why he thought the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. This statement is insufficient on its own to support an investigatory detention.
The order entered by the Court denying the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress found Officer Rideaux had reasonable suspicion to conduct a DUI investigation based upon the information he received from Officer Debottis and his own independent observations. Officer Rideaux testified he observed the Defendant to have slurred speech and red eyes. Notwithstanding the fact that there was no evidence introduced that the Defendant was driving, the body camera footage viewed by the Court refutes Officer Rideaux’ s testimony that Birch had slurred speech and red eyes. The video shows Birch speaking clearly, communicating effectively, and interacting appropriately with the officers. Birch is initially sitting on the curb under a streetlight. When he stands up, he is steady on his feet. Officer Rideaux is shining his flashlight into Birch’s eyes and they do not appear red on the body camera footage viewed by the Court.
Ultimately, the Court found that there was insufficient evidence that Birch was driving and insufficient evidence of impairment for the Officer to conclude that he had reasonable suspicion to conduct a DUI investigation.
As such, the Court granted the Motion to Suppress and prohibited the State from using any evidence obtained from the DUI investigation and anything subsequent to that point.