IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. ROBERTO CASTANEDA, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) CASE NO. SC ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Respondent.

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ROBERTO CASTANEDA, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. SC STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. JURISIDICTIONAL BRIEF OF PETITIONER On Review from the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, State of Florida CAREY HAUGHWOUT Public Defender 15 th Judicial Circuit of Florida 421 Third Street/6 th Floor West Palm Beach, Florida ( Paul E. Petillo Assistant Public Defender Florida Bar No Attorney for Petitioner

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS... 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... 3 ARGUMENT... 4 ARGUMENT THIS COURT HAS CONFLICT JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE DISTRICT S COURT S DECISION CONFLICTS WITH THIS COURT S DECISION IN STATE V. TAYLOR... 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE... 6 CERTIFICATE OF FONT... 6 i

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Origi v. State, 912 So.2d 69 (Fla. 4 th DCA State v. Ameqrane, 39 So.3d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA , 3, 4 State v. Castaneda, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1347 (Fla. 4 th DCA June 24, State v. Taylor, 648 So.2d 701 (Fla , 3, 4, 5 Florida Constitution Art. V, 3(b(3 Fla. Const... 4 Statutes (1(a Fla. Stat. ( ii

4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS Petitioner, Roberto Castaneda, was stopped for speeding (60 mph in a 40 mph zone. The officer smelled an odor of a alcohol and saw that Castaneda s eyes were blood shot and watery. When the officer asked him whether he d been drinking, he said he had not. The officer asked him to complete some roadside sobriety tests. The trial court suppressed the results of the tests on the ground that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a DUI investigation without additional signs of impairment. The State appealed. The Fourth District reversed. The court wrote that [i]n order to detain someone for a DUI investigation, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the detainee committed the offense. State v. Castaneda, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1347, D1348 (Fla. 4 th DCA June 24, 2011, citing State v. Taylor, 648 So.2d 701 (Fla The court relied on Origi v. State, 912 So.2d 69 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2005, and State v. Ameqrane, 39 So.3d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010, 1 in holding that a high rate of speed, the smell of alcohol, and bloodshot, watery eyes amounted to reasonable suspicion for a DUI investigation. These observations, the court held, were enough. 1 Ameqrane is pending before this Court on the issue of jurisdiction. No. SC

5 Castaneda filed a notice to invoke discretionary jurisdiction on June 30,

6 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The rule that has developed from this case and State v. Ameqrane, 39 So.3d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010, is that the police may require a driver to undergo roadside sobriety tests based on reasonable suspicion that the driver has been drinking. This conflicts with the rule put down in State v. Taylor, 648 So.2d 701 (Fla. 1995, that the police need reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver s normal faculties are impaired by alcohol. This Court should accept review and resolve the conflict. 3

7 ARGUMENT THIS COURT HAS CONFLICT JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE DISTRICT S COURT S DECISION CONFLICTS WITH THIS COURT S DECISION IN STATE V. TAYLOR This Court has jurisdiction to review a decision that conflicts with a decision of this Court or another district court of appeal. Art. V, 3(b(3, Fla. Const. The Fourth District s decision conflicts with this Court s decision in State v. Taylor, 648 So.2d 701 (Fla To conduct a DUI investigation, officers need a reasonable suspicion that the driver s normal faculties are impaired. State v. Taylor. It isn t enough that the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the driver has simply consumed some alcohol; that isn t illegal (1(a, Fla. Stat. (2010. In State v. Taylor, for example, this Court held that the officer had such a reasonable suspicion: When Taylor exited his car, he staggered and exhibited slurred speech, watery, bloodshot eyes, and a strong odor of alcohol. This combined with a high rate of speed on the highway, was more than enough to provide Quant with reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed, i.e. DUI. These facts establish that the officer had a reasonable suspicion to believe the driver s normal faculties ability to walk and talk were impaired. The same can t be said in this case (or in State v. Ameqrane, 39 So.3d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA The officer only had a reasonable suspicion that Castaneda had been drinking, not that his normal faculties were impaired. Under State v. 4

8 Taylor, this isn t enough for a driver to undergo the embarrassing and stressful DUI investigation. Accordingly, this Court should accept review and resolve the conflict between this case and State v. Taylor. 5

9 CONCLUSION This Court should accept jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted, CAREY HAUGHWOUT Public Defender 15 th Judicial Circuit Criminal Justice Building ( Paul E. Petillo Assistant Public Defender Florida Bar No CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been furnished to Mark J. Hamel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Ninth Floor, 1515 N. Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida , by courier this 11th day of July, Paul E. Petillo CERTIFICATE OF FONT I HEREBY CERTIFY the instant brief has been prepared with 14 point Times New Roman type, in compliance with a R. App. P (a(2. Paul E. Petillo 6