Welcome to The Traffic Ticket Help Center

D.U.I. investigation has become very prevalent in South Florida as more and more people are pulled over and asked that infamous question; if an officer or deputy pulls you over and asks whether or not you've been drinking, do you know what to say?; Do you take the breathalyzer test?; Do you do the roadside sobriety exercises? If you don't know the answers to these questions the consequences could affect you for the rest of your life. The attorneys at Lustig & Associates' TRAFFIC TICKET HELP CENTER have handled countless D.U.I.'s. If you find yourself in that position were here to help.

If a police officer pulls you over and asks you if you have been drinking and he smells any alcohol at all, there are two likely scenarios with vastly different outcomes which are likely to occur depending on which choice you make as the subject of the roadside investigation. If your response to the question is "just on drink or just one beer," you have joined the ranks of thousands of individuals who have been convicted of D.U.I. A conviction for D.U.I. remains on your record for life. So you may want to pay attention. "I had just one drink officer" may prompt the officer to ask you to step out of the car to perform roadside sobriety exercises and the breathalyzer back at the station.

Roadside Sobriety Exercises are Voluntary
and are NOT required by law. They are used by police officers to bring evidence in front of a jury of Driving Under the Influence. The police may say they are to dispel the officer's belief of the driver's impairment. These tests are very difficult whether you have been drinking or not. Moreover, the officer who has practiced these exercises many times as part of the job, will demonstrate on the video first so as to make any person who does not have the practice look impaired in their performance.

Refusing the Breathalyzer test for the first time is NOT criminal.

The breathalyzer test is administered to determine whether your blood alcohol level is .08 or above and refusal to submit to a breath or urine for the first time can only subject you to a civil license suspension. However, if you blow into the machine and your breath reading is .08 or higher, your license will be suspended anyway.

Whether you refuse or submit a breath of .08 or above, you are likely to spend the night in jail, however, the critical difference is that if you blow into the machine you provide the police with evidence for a jury to convict you, and criminal conviction for DUI remains on your license for the rest of your life.

The good news is that so long as you don’t have any prior DUI license suspensions or so long as your license is not suspended at the time for any other reason, you should be eligible for a hardship or business purposes license with the completion of the 12 hour DUI driving school called DUI Level 1. Under these circumstances the difference in refusing the breathalyzer and blowing .08 or above is 60 days of no driving. A first refusal requires a total of 90 days no driving, and a hardship or business purposes license for the remainder of any suspension with the completion of the 12 hour driving school, whereas blowing .08 or above subjects you to a total of 30 days of no driving, and a hardship or business purposes license for the remainder of any suspension with the completion of the 12 hour driving school.

Under the State of Florida’s policy for DUI, .08 or above brings the presumption of impairment in our courts. That coupled with the voluntary roadside sobriety exercises which are designed to make you look impaired provides for a likely conviction for DUI. However, once pulled over. You will make certain choices that can affect your future. Most people have gone out to dinner at some time or another and have had a couple of glasses of wine or alcohol before getting into an automobile to drive home. Because the threshold for the presumption of impairment is at the low .08 (it used to be .10) in Florida, many people pulled over after dinner and wine will find themselves in a serious predicament which can have completely different outcomes depending upon what they say or do upon contact with the officer.

The following common scenario illustrates two different outcomes based upon the same dinner. Jack and Dave met for an important business dinner at a fancy restaurant. They each had two glasses of wine with a 5 course meal. It was a good meeting and they accomplished a lot. After dinner they shook hands and said goodbye. Jack got into his automobile and headed home North on Federal Highway. Dave got into his automobile and headed South on Federal Highway. Because of the vigorous selective enforcement for DUI in South Florida, both Jack and Dave ran into DUI checkpoints or what is also called a "lane squeeze.”

We will start with what happened to Jack. Jack was asked whether he had been drinking. He stated he just had a glass of wine with dinner. After providing his license and registration, he was then asked to step out of the car. Jack stepped out of the car, whereupon the officer asked him to follow the tip of his pen with his eye balls without moving his head. The officer looked at the corners of Jack’s eyes to see if the corners of Jack’s eyeballs jerked horizontally (called horizontal gaze nystagmus), as the officer was told that this indicates whether a person is impaired or not. Most of the courts however do not permit this to be introduced as evidence without further scientific foundation. After looking at Jack’s eye movements, in the dark with a flashlight the officer determined Jack was probably impaired and already made his decision to arrest. The officer asks Jack to submit to voluntary roadside sobriety exercises, as he knows this will help gain a conviction in court due to the difficulty of such exercises under any circumstances. Jack did not know these exercises were voluntary and was scared, so he agreed to perform them. The officer then asked Jack to stand in an awkward position with the heel of one foot touching the toes of his other foot, sort of like standing on a tightrope, only that a trained tightrope walker gets to practice and hold his arms out like an airplane. Jack was not allowed to practice and was told that he had to keep his arms down. Jack had to stay in this awkward position trying to maintain balance until the officer finished demonstrating what he wanted Jack to do. He explained and demonstrated to Jack that he had to walk 9 steps heel to toe and then spin around and do the same thing. Unbeknownst to Jack, he was being videotaped by the camera on the dashboard of the officer’s car. Jack was a heavy man and was not in great physical shape as he did not exercise. He had difficulty in comparison to the way the officer did it, especially since the officer has practiced and demonstrated the exercise hundreds of times. This was Jack’s first time. Jack was then asked to stand on one leg and raise the other leg 6 inches off the ground while counting “one-, onethousand, two-one thousand...” all the way up to thirty. This was a very difficult task and Jack had to put his foot down on a few occasions to rest. Finally, the officer asked Jack to watch the officer demonstrate the finger to nose exercise. In this exercise the officer extended his arms out to his sides. He then extended his right arm out in front of his face and brought in his right index finger to the tip of his nose and then extended his right arm out to the side like an airplane. Jack then did everything the same except after he brought his right index finger to the tip of his nose he extended his arm out back in front of him and then extended it out to the side like an airplane. The officer made a point of this for the video camera and demonstrated again to make Jack look like he couldn’t follow directions, when in fact most people sober or impaired make the same error on the finger to nose exercise. Jack was then told to turn around. The officer then placed Jack under arrest, asked Jack to put his hands behind his back and handcuffed him. He then explained to Jack that under Florida law he is required to submit a breath or urine sample and he was asked whether he would consent. Jack stated that he would. The video camera on the dash of the officer’s car recorded all of this. Jack was then placed in the back of the police car and brought to the station or BAT (breath alcohol testing) facility for a breath test. Jack submitted 3 breaths. The first was an air blank to test the machine, the second was a .078 and the other was a .080. Jack spent about 24 hours in jail, even though the law requires only 8 hours after an arrest for DUI. After posting a $500 bond Jack was released. A month later he received a court date in the mail. Jack then went to court and was told that if he maintained a not guilty plea and went to trial and lost he could go to jail for 6 months, but if he took the plea deal which by law requires a conviction to remain on his record for life, he would not go to jail. Jack did not want to take the chance of going to jail for six months so he took the conviction. Jack now has a criminal record which will remain with him for life. His license was also suspended as a requirement of the DUI conviction and the DMV policy for blowing .08 or above.

We now turn to Dave who had a different outcome. Dave was asked by the officer whether he had anything to drink. Dave told the officer “not a drop.” At this point the officer stated that he smelled alcohol even though Dave’s window was halfway up. After providing the officer with license and registration, the officer asked Dave to step out of the car. Although it was late and Dave had a long day he maintained his composure. Good thing for Dave, as unbeknownst to Dave, the officer was recording everything with his dashboard video camera which also records sound. The officer then asked Dave again if he was sure he didn’t have anything to drink. Dave again stated “not a drop.” The officer then asked Dave to look at the tip of his flashlight and follow it with his eyes. Dave inquired “why.” The officer then stated that it was part of a DUI investigation. At that point Dave stated if this was an investigation for DUI (which is a criminal investigation) then he wanted a lawyer present, as he was aware of prior abuses which were in the newspaper. Dave immediately recalled reading how the Broward Sheriff’s Office Deputy Andrew Taylor set up and pulled over the Chief of Police of the City of Oakland Park coming out of a bar even though the Chief was not impaired. He further recalled that even after the Chief of Police completed the roadside sobriety exercises in a satisfactory manner, he was still taken to jail.

(Deputy Taylor was fired and most of his outstanding arrests for DUI were broken down to Reckless Driving or thrown out altogether.) After Dave stated he wanted a lawyer present, the officer stated that Dave was not entitled to a lawyer at that stage of the investigation. Dave did not know the law and insisted he would not do or say anything without a lawyer. The officer then asked Dave if he would perform the roadside sobriety exercises. Dave maintained his position and stated he would not say or do anything further without a lawyer. The officer then asked Dave if he would submit to a breath. He told Dave it was required by law, that his license would be suspended if he refused. (however, he did not tell Dave it was only civil and not a criminal violation for a first refusal). Dave stood silent. Although the officer did not have probable cause to arrest since Dave did not provide any evidence of impairment for the officer, the officer arrested Dave anyway to be on the safe side, and there might be a chance Dave would submit to a breath test down at the station. Dave maintained his silence and refused everything since he did not have a lawyer and one would not be provided at that stage. The officer then filed his police report

(probable cause affidavit). The case filer at the State Attorney’s Office read the police report and declined to file charges against Dave, as he did not believe there was enough evidence for a conviction. Dave would not be charged with DUI. Dave’s license however was suspended for one year for refusal to submit a breath or urine. However, after 90 days of no driving, and the completion of the 12 hour driving school DUI Level 1, Dave was given a hardship license for the remaining 9 months of the suspension, which meant he could drive for any necessity including work, school, church, groceries etc.

The foregoing illustrates two drastically different outcomes. Even though they both drank the same amount, Jack got a criminal conviction for DUI on his record for life while Dave received no criminal record. Because Jack now had a criminal conviction, Jack had difficulty advancing in the corporate world, as many employers had a policy against hiring people with a criminal conviction. Jack got very depressed over his difficulty getting anywhere in the corporate world due to his criminal conviction. He began drinking very excessively to alleviate his depression. Part of his plea deal also stated “no alcohol or intoxicants for 6 months.” A random urinalysis by his probation officer detected alcohol. Jack was found to have violated his probation and was sentenced to 3 months in jail. His life went downhill from there.

Dave on the other hand like most people who have a small amount of wine with dinner, maintained his life and progressed up the ladder of prosperity.