Floridians Exercise Rights at DUI Checkpoints with “Fair DUI Flier”

In the past few months, you may have seen Youtube videos have been popping up left and right showing drivers in Florida passing through DUI checkpoints without having to submit to the standard inconveniencies normally associated with DUI checkpoints.
One video in particular (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqEXTVe7MCQ) has been view more that 2.2 million times and has inspired others make their own videos driving through DUI checkpoints, most of which are similar in content.

So what’s happening in these videos?
Drivers pull up to DUI checkpoints and instead of rolling down their windows to speak to the police and possibly give a breath sample, they motion to a Ziplock baggie dangling by a string from the top of the closed window.
The checkpoint officers look at the baggie which contains several items; a driver’s license, proof of insurance, registration, and the “fair DUI flier.” The flier, created by Boca Raton defense attorney, Warren Redlich, states in bold lettering, “I remain silent. No searches. I want my lawyer.”
After inspecting the contents of the baggie, the officers wave the motorists through the checkpoint.
Although many of the YouTube videos show officers waving motorists through the checkpoint without incident, many law enforcement agencies take issue with the approach claiming that it’s a way for drunk drivers to avoid arrest.
Redlich, however, created the “fair DUI flier” to protect sober motorists from a false arrest. “People don’t realize that innocent people get arrested for drunk driving; it happens a lot,” said Redlich and I wholeheartedly agree.
I’ve said it before on this blog before that I, and other DUI defense attorneys, have defended many people where the arresting officer “observed the objective signs of intoxication” and it was later determined that the person was well below the legal limit or even sober. So why give them the opportunity to “observe” the bloodshot eyes, hear the slurred speech, smell the alcohol, etc.?
“If you don’t roll down your window and don’t speak, you’ve taken away some of those,” Redlich told NBC affiliate WTVJ.
Redlich’s method doesn’t sit well with Sheriff David Shoar of St. Johns County and president of the Florida Sheriffs Association. Pointing to the Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz case that I mentioned in my last post, Shoar told the associated press, “[Motorists] wouldn’t be allowed out of that checkpoint until they talk to us. We have a legitimate right to do it.”
Sorry, Mr. Shoar, you’re only half right.
Sure, law enforcement has a legitimate right to set up checkpoints. They do not have a legitimate right to force motorists to talk to them. In fact, it is the people’s constitutional right not to talk to law enforcement. And Redlich’s flier only ensures that people exercise their constitutional rights.
 This entry was posted on Monday, February 16th, 2015 at 12:12 pm and is filed under Duiblog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Continue Reading...

Florida Gay Marriage and Equal Rights

Yesterday marked the end of Florida’s ban on legally recognized gay marriages. Gay couples, many who had been waiting decades, lined up inside and outside courthouses to get their marriage licenses. This is a big step for Florida. But what does being married mean legally speaking?

Marriage has always been what attorneys call a “legal fiction” — meaning that when two people are married the law sees them a little differently than it sees single people who aren’t legally married. While most people know that being married means different income tax rules apply, etc., there are some other legal rights that are exclusive to only married people. Let’s talk a little about two of them that normally slip under the radar:

If you watch TV, you know that in a criminal case, what you say can and will be used against you in the court of law. Unless you say it to your attorney or your spouse. Before gay marriages were legally recognized, gay couples or partnerships couldn’t enjoy this right that hetero married people held.

Some things you should know about Florida’s spousal immunity privilege:

Also, you may notice that the spousal immunity privilege is actually titled “Husband-Wife Privilege” in the Florida Statutes. There are actually 75 statutes that use the word “husband” and 69 statutes that use the word “wife.” But, the way the state legislature is made up I wouldn’t expect this wording to change any time soon.

If you are married, you are legally a “survivor” for purposes of Florida’s wrongful death statute. Let me explain what this means using two scenarios:

Not Married: You and your partner are driving in your car when you are hit by an eighteen wheeler. Your partner dies. You sue the driver of the eighteen wheeler for your partner’s death (this is a “wrongful death lawsuit”). Even though the driver of the eighteen wheeler caused the accident and killed your partner, you can’t recover damages for your emotional trauma or for the loss of your partner’s support as a result of your partner’s death.Married: You and your spouse are driving in your car when you are hit by an eighteen wheeler. Your spouse dies. You sue the driver of the eighteen wheeler for your spouse’s death (this is a “wrongful death lawsuit”). Because you are married you are able to recover damages for your emotional trauma from the eighteen wheeler driver.

See the difference? The wrongful death law gives special treatment to people who are legally married over those who aren’t. Before gay marriage was legal, gay couples or domestic partnerships couldn’t get the same damages as hetero married couples.

Hopefully you won’t have to use either the spousal immunity privilege or be a wrongful death survivor. But if you have questions about these, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Sam proudly represents those accused of crimes and injured through no fault of their own throughout the greater Tampa Bay area.

Read all posts by Sam Harden

Continue Reading...

What the police don't want you to know about Miranda Rights

DetailsCategory: DUI Blog

By Jessica Towne

Miranda rights are back in the news. The New York Times Science Section under "Well" on October 14, 2014 had an eye-opening article on juveniles and police interrogators. Researchers determined that the brains of adolescents are different than adult brains, and teens don't necessarily understand the implications of telling the police what their involvement in a crime may or may not have been.

It's not just juveniles who quickly waive their Miranda rights.

These are very important rights that many of us have heard on TV, in the movies, and perhaps live and in person.

To simplify the decision that gave us our Miranda rights in 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court held that without proper safeguards, the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual's will to resist and compel him to speak where he would otherwise not do so freely. Therefore, a defendant must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.

In other words, even our Supreme Court recognizes that the cards are stacked in favor of the police. Someone who's being questioned doesn't know the criminal laws and procedures like the police do, just like the police don't know how to do your job. It's only fair that the police tell you before they question you that the entire purpose of this question-and-answer session is to gather evidence to prosecute you and put you in jail.

Continue Reading...