Florida DUI Traffic Stop? As a DUI defense attorney, I am often asked by my clients, “Can the police really pull me over for just swerving a little bit?” The answer, as demonstrated in the recent case of State of Florida v. Tommy Bozeman (2025), is a resounding no—at least not without very specific, articulable facts. I have spent my career at dui2go.com fighting to ensure that law enforcement follows the letter of the law, specifically the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, which protect you against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In the Bozeman case, a judge in the 7th Judicial Circuit for Volusia County recently granted a motion to suppress all evidence because the initial traffic stop was deemed illegal. I find this case particularly compelling because it highlights the thin line between a “hunch” and “reasonable suspicion.” If you feel your stop was unjustified, I encourage you to learn more about me and how we approach these complex legal challenges.

What Constitutes a Legal Florida DUI Traffic Stop?

I want you to understand that for a police officer to legally pull you over, they generally need one of two things. First, they can have probable cause that a traffic violation occurred—such as speeding or running a red light. Second, they can have a founded suspicion (also known as reasonable suspicion) that criminal activity, such as driving under the influence, is afoot. This isn’t just my opinion; it is the standard set by the Florida Supreme Court in cases like Dobrin v. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

In the Bozeman matter, the Florida DUI Traffic Stop officer claimed he was performing a “welfare check.” We see this often in DUI cases where the officer can’t point to a specific broken law. They claim they are worried about your safety to justify the stop. However, the court ruled that “ping-ponging” within a lane for an undetermined amount of time, without impacting other traffic or pedestrians, does not meet the legal threshold for a stop. If you’ve been arrested under similar circumstances, please reach out to us immediately to discuss your defense.

Understanding the “Community Caretaker” Doctrine

The police often rely on what we call the Community Caretaker Doctrine. This is a legal exception that allows officers to stop a vehicle without suspecting a crime if they believe it is necessary for public safety or to provide emergency aid. In my experience, this is where many “welfare checks” originate. The courts have identified three specific categories of Florida DUI Traffic Stops for this:

1. The Emergency Aid Exception: (e.g., a driver slumped over the wheel).
2. Automobile Impoundment/Inventory: (standard police procedure).
3. The Public Servant Exception: (providing necessary assistance).

In the Bozeman case, the court applied the “Mitchell Test” from People v. Mitchell to see if the welfare check was valid. I’ve outlined how the court viewed the evidence in the table below to show you why the stop failed.

Can Brief Lane Deviations Justify a Florida DUI Traffic Stop?

I frequently see officers cite Florida Statute 316.089(1), which requires drivers to stay within a single lane “as nearly as practicable.” However, I want you to know that the courts are very clear: it is not always possible to maintain a perfect line. In Crooks v. State, the court held that a brief lane deviation that doesn’t endanger others is not a crime.

In the Bozeman case, the driver moved from the right lane toward the left lane for a moment and then back. There were no other cars around. The judge noted that the officer’s dash-cam—which records the 30 seconds before the lights are turned on—showed absolutely nothing unusual. This is why I always scrutinize video evidence. If the “ping-ponging” isn’t on the video, we have a very strong argument that the officer was acting on a hunch rather than a fact.

Key Takeaway: “A driving pattern may be unusual without being erratic.” — State v. Fletcher. I use this precedent to protect my clients from stops based on minor, safe lane movements.

FAQ: Your Questions About Illegal Stops Answered

Comparing Successful vs. Unsuccessful Traffic Stops

To help you understand where your case might fall, I’ve put together a comparison of Florida DUI Traffic Stop cases. This shows the difference between driving that is just “unusual” and driving that is truly “erratic” enough to allow a stop.

Why the “Bozeman” Victory Matters for Your Case

The judge’s order in State v. Bozeman is a victory for everyone I represent. It reinforces the idea that the police cannot use “welfare checks” as a blanket authority to conduct DUI investigations on motorists who are simply lost or driving in an “unremarkable” fashion. The judge noted that the driver’s first words were, “You were blinding me,” referring to the officer’s high SUV headlights. This provided a logical, non-criminal explanation for why the driver was switching lanes—he was trying to get away from the glare!

When I take on a case, I look for these details. Was the officer’s car too close? Did they record the driving? Did they actually ask if you were okay? If the answer is no, we may be able to file a Motion to Suppress, just like in this case, which can lead to all evidence—including breath tests and field sobriety exercises—being thrown out.

Resources for Further Research

I believe in an informed client. If you want to dive deeper into the Florida DUI Traffic Stop statutes and rules we use to defend you, I recommend visiting these official sites:

• The Florida Senate – Chapter 316 (State Uniform Traffic Control)
• Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure – Rule 3.190
• Justia – Florida Statutes and Case Law Search

Let Me Help You Protect Your Future

I know how stressful a DUI arrest can be, but the Bozeman case proves that the police are not always right. If you were stopped for swerving, a welfare check, or an “unusual” driving pattern, I want to hear your story. My team and I at dui2go.com are dedicated to holding law enforcement accountable to the Constitution.

Would you like me to review your Florida DUI Traffic Stop, police report and dash-cam footage to see if your traffic stop was illegal?

Contact us today to get started.

FULL TEXT OF OPINION

33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 430a

STATE OF FLORIDA, v. TOMMY BOZEMAN, Defendant. County Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County. Case No. 2025 105513 MMDB. Division 80. December 2, 2025. Bryan A. Feigenbaum, Judge.

ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, pursuant to Rule 3.190, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, Section 12 of the Florida Constitution, and 901.15 Florida Statute (2022), and having heard testimony and argument, and after reviewing evidence and case law, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, the following findings are made:

Daytona Beach Shores Department of Public Safety Officer Carmin was on duty around 1:10 am. He was parked in his marked SUV car in such a manner as to observe any traffic passing him on the four-laned A1A in his city. He heard vehicle acceleration and thought a vehicle was possibly being driven over the speed limit. He then pulled out behind a convertible heading northbound. As he followed the same, as there were no other vehicles in the area, he saw the vehicle move over from the right lane into the left, or passing lane, by some distance but not fully over, and then go back to the right lane. No other traffic or pedestrian was around to be impacted. The police vehicle was driven close enough for the officer to read the license plate. The convertible then made a quick turn into a hotel parking lot on the right, or east, side of A1A. The officer noted that the vehicle pulled into the parking lot but did not park in a designated spot.

Off. Carmin decided not to pursue the matter, thinking the driver was parking for the night, and proceeded past going northbound. After passing the parking lot, he observed the same vehicle pulling back onto A1A and again proceeding northbound. Losing sight of the vehicle for just a few seconds, Off. Carmin did a U-turn so he could continue to follow behind the vehicle. There was no other traffic present.

As he followed the vehicle, he noticed the convertible continually swerving within the left lane, from the center lane to the right-hand lane. The officer described it as “ping-ponging” within the lane, but did not elaborate on how many times this happened, how long this went on for, nor if it was gradual or rapid. The vehicle switched lanes then to the right-hand lane and the officer followed the vehicle for another mile and a half. No other erratic driving was observed. The officer decided to put his lights and sirens on and make a traffic stop for a “welfare check”. Once he activated the lights and sirens, the dash-cam began recording and captured the prior thirty seconds and forward. No unusual driving was shown on the recording. The officer could have activated the dash-cam earlier without putting on his lights and sirens if he so chose. In total, Off. Carmin observed the Defendant driving for two and a half miles and saw the one brief lane deviation and some type of swerving for an indeterminate amount of time within the lane which was not captured by the dash-cam. Off. Carmin testified that he saw no other erratic driving and was not concerned about any danger posed to anyone else.

After the traffic stop, conversations and observations led to a DUI investigation and subsequent arrest. The only other witness was Sgt. Frank of the same agency. Sgt. Frank testified he was situated north of where the driving occurred but did see the driver pulling into the hotel parking lot while Off. Carmin passed by and seeing the same vehicle re-enter A1A northbound. Although he didn’t describe seeing the swerving within the lane, he testified there was a lane change, which he thought was unusual, and suspected the driver’s earlier actions to be an attempt to avoid law enforcement.

The Defendant’s first words upon being approached by Off. Carmin were that “you were blinding me”, referring to the officer’s headlights which sit much higher than the convertible that he was driving. Off. Carmin told the Defendant he got behind him since “. . . he was doing a little swerving”. Off. Carmin did not inquire whether the driver was feeling well, was tired, or if there were any mechanical issues with the convertible. Before starting the DUI investigation, Off. Carmin relayed to Sgt. Frank that he “saw him swerve a little bit” and then the driver switched lanes before he pulled into the hotel parking lot. Off. Carmin told Sgt. Frank that after the driver re-entered AIA, after the officer got behind him again, the driver again switched lanes but he did not mention anything about seeing him continuously swerving within the lane.

The defense argues there was no legal basis for the traffic stop, and thus the subsequent investigation and arrest should be suppressed. A traffic stop may be based on probable cause that a traffic violation occurred and the court should use an objective approach to make that determination. Dobrin v. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 874 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2004) [29 Fla. L. Weekly S275a]. Also, a traffic stop is justifiable if there is a “founded suspicion”, or reasonable suspicion, of criminal activity, such as driving under the influence, Florida Department of Motor Vehicles v. DeShong, 603 So.2d 1349, 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), or that the driver may be ill, tired, impaired, or that there are vehicle mechanical defects. See Ndow v. State, 864 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) [29 Fla. L. Weekly D321a]. (The driver, at 2 a.m., was stopped at a green light for the light’s entire cycle, then slowed down to not pass the police officer, then pulled over and occupants were changing places). “. . . [A] legitimate concern for the safety of the motoring public can warrant a brief investigatory stop to determine whether a driver is ill, tired, or driving under the influence in situations less suspicious than that required for other types of criminal behavior.” DeShong, id. at 1352.

There are police-citizen contacts involving automobiles where there is not a law enforcement belief of a criminal law violation. The police community caretaker function is “. . . totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute. The community caretaker function [is] recognized as an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” See Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S. Ct. 2523 (1973); State v. Perez, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 35a (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir., Miami-Dade County Cir. Ct. Oct. 5, 2004), and State v. Madzel, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 501a (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir., Flagler County Ct. March 1, 2013). “Under the community caretaker doctrine, an officer may stop a vehicle without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity if the stop is necessary for public safety and welfare. . . . Even a stop pursuant to an officer’s community caretaker responsibilities, however, must be based on specific articulable facts showing that the stop was necessary for the protection of the public.” Majors v. State, 70 So. 3d 655, 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D1355a], citing to Castella v. State, 959 So. 2d 1285, 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D1784a]. The three recognized subdivisions to the community caretaker doctrine are: (1) the emergency aid exception, (2) the automobile impoundment/inventory exception, and (3) the public servant exception. See Perez, id.

None of these exceptions are applicable in this case. If “welfare check” is to be interpreted as falling under the emergency aid exception, there have to be sufficient facts. A good guideline is the three part test articulated in People v. Mitchell, 347 N.E. 2d 607, 609 (N.Y. 1976): (1) Was there an objectively reasonable basis for a belief in the immediate need for police assistance for the protection of life or property?; (2) Were the officer’s actions motivated by an intent to aid or protect, rather than solve a crime?; and (3) Do the police actions fall within the scope of the emergency?

This is not a case where a driver is slumped over behind the wheel of a car with the motor running. See Perez, id.; Madzel, id.; and Danielewicz v. State, 730 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D793a]. There are some unusual driving moments but nothing that rises to the level of an emergency concern.

Driving outside the lane of travel for a brief moment is not by itself enough to violate the failing to drive in a single lane statute. No other vehicles or pedestrians were impacted. See Section 316.089 (1), Florida. Statutes (2015); Crooks v. State, 710 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) [23 Fla. L. Weekly D1323b]; Jordan v. State, 831 So. 2d 1241, 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) [27 Fla. L. Weekly D2651a] (“[I]t is not practicable, perhaps not even possible, for a motorist to maintain a single lane at all times and that the crucial concern is safety rather than precision.”); Peterson v. State, 264 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) [44 Fla. L. Weekly D641a]; and State v. Taylor, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 397b (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir., Volusia County Ct. Jan. 13, 2011).

Driving into a hotel parking lot at night for a brief moment or two, even if not pulling into a designated parking spot, is not so unusual as to constitute an emergency concern. A driver may be lost or may be pulling over to respond to a text or phone call. It is true that it may also be indicative of an effort to get away from a police officer and could have been a factor in other situations, but this was stated to be a “welfare check” stop. The driving pattern here does not fit a “headlong flight” scenario which the United States Supreme Court has deemed “the consummate act of evasion.” Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 121, 120 S. Ct. 673 (2000). “Additionally, when a vehicle drives away from the scene “in an unremarkable fashion,” the act of leaving the scene is not likely to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” Majors, id. at 660, citing to Hill v. State, 51 So. 3d 649, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D170b].

While continuous swerving within a lane can justify a traffic stop, there were insufficient details as far as how long or pronounced was this swerving. “Ping-ponging” within a lane can mean a lot of different things and the dash-cam footage certainly did not convey any concerning swerving. The officer’s initial summary to his fellow officer did not relay any swerving and the other officer, who was watching the vehicle approach his direction, testified he saw a lane switch but did not mention any swerving. There were no allegations of non-compliance with the posted speed limit, any sudden unusual changes in speed, nor unexplained delay at a traffic light. See Agreda v. State, 152 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D2516a] (the driver going 45 MPH in a 65 MPH zone was not enough on its own to justify a stop for a police officer’s community care function); State v. Ledo, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 537a (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir., St. Johns County Ct. Aug.7, 2019); Harapas v. State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 989a (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir. Ct., Aug. 4, 2014), and State v. Fletcher, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 545a (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir., Volusia County Ct. June 21, 2016) (“A driving pattern may be unusual without being erratic.”).

Contrast the instant fact pattern with the following cases: Roberts v. State, 732 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D533a] (the driver’s continuous weaving within a lane was captured by the dash-cam and the officer had a reasonable suspicion of an impaired driver); Yanes v. State, 877 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) [29 Fla. L. Weekly D1282a] (the officer saw the driver, on the Florida Turnpike, cross the fog-line three times within a mile, each time by about one-half of its width, thus believing the driver was impaired, sick, or tired and, also, the deviation outside the lane was a violation of the single lane statute since the driving was by more then what was practicable); Esteen v. State, 503 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (after midnight, the driver was seen on I-95 going 45 MPH and “weaving within the lane, executing an S shape up the Interstate”); Bailey v. State, 319 So. 2d 22, 26 (Fla. 1975) (“Because of the dangers inherent to our modern vehicular mode of life, there may be justification for the stopping of a vehicle by a patrolman to determine the reason for its unusual operation.”; the driver was only going 45 MPH on the Florida Turnpike and weaving from one side to the other); State v. Carrillo, 506 So. 2d.495 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (at 2 a.m., the driver was weaving in an extreme manner within a lane, in excess of five times within one-quarter of a mile, thus officer believed the driver was intoxicated); Davidson v. State [Editor’s note: State v. Davidson], 744 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D2511a] (the driver was going between 40 and 50 MPH where there was a 70 MPH speed limit, and drifting in and out of the lane, jerking the vehicle back in a correcting manner, creating a reasonable suspicion of impairment); DeShong, id. (the driver was using the lane markers to position his vehicle and, for no apparent reason, abruptly slowed from 55 to 30 MPH and then accelerated rapidly so the officer had founded suspicion that this erratic driving was indicative of driver impairment or vehicle malfunction); State v. Vinci, 146 So. 3d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) [39 Fla. L. Weekly D1970c] (within a mile, the driver continually went from the right side of the lane to the other, hitting reflectors, and then switched lanes and left his turn sign blinking, creating reasonable suspicion of impairment). DeSouza v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 544b (Fla. 18th Jud. Cir. Ct. Oct. 18, 2022) (on multiple occasions, the driver both swerved within his lane and left his lane of travel, including into the center turn lane; the stop was warranted under the community caretaker doctrine and, reflecting that, the officer asked the driver if there was something mechanically wrong with the vehicle or if the driver was having a medical issue to explain the swerving); and Baden v. State, 174 So. 3d 494, 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) [40 Fla. L. Weekly D1913b] (at 2 a.m., the driver repeatedly hit a curb, while riding alongside a pedestrian, causing the person to flinch, and the officer feared an accident.) (“What establishes one’s driving as ‘erratic’ is determined on a case-by-case basis as there is no statutory definition of erratic driving.”).

The fact that a vehicle switched lanes in and of itself is not necessarily erratic. A convertible driver might not like higher level headlights in his or her rear-view and side mirrors. Both times the convertible switched lanes, it was when the first officer was behind him; the first time when he got close enough to read the license plate. The Defendant, even before being questioned, stated that he was being blinded by the officer’s lights.

A “welfare concern” should not be invoked so broadly as to cloak what may otherwise be a hunch that a driver is impaired. See Bell v. State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 354a (Fla. 7th Cir. Ct. April 10, 2002) (“This Court will not grant police officers blanket authority to conduct investigatory stops for DUI, by virtue of a ‘well-being check’, on motorists who are simply lost, unfamiliar with the vicinity, or pose no danger to surrounding traffic.”); Callaghan v. State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 04-20192-CINS (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir., Cir. Ct. Sept. 17, 2004); State v. Rohde, 864 N.W.2d 704, 709 (Neb. App. 2015) (“The [community caretaker] exception should be narrowly and carefully applied in order to prevent its abuse.”); and State v. Wright, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 618a (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir., Flagler County Ct. Aug. 31, 2020). Even considering the driving pattern in its totality, there was insufficient evidence of erratic driving to justify the traffic stop for a “welfare check”.

Additionally, Off. Carmin’s report and testimony claimed this was a “welfare check” and was not based on a well-founded or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If the traffic stop was for that latter reason, the Court would have examined the totality of the circumstances surrounding the detention and would have considered relevant factors which includes “the time of day; the appearance and behavior of the suspect; the appearance and manner of operation of any vehicle involved; and anything incongruous or unusual in the situation as interpreted in light of the officer’s knowledge” to analyze whether this was more than “[a] hunch or mere suspicion”. Huffman v. State, 937 So. 2d 202, 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) [31 Fla. L. Weekly D2227a] (citing to other cases). See also Faunce v. State, 884 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) [29 Fla. L. Weekly D2251b].

Based on all the evidence and case law, balancing the public’s right to be free from overbroad traffic stops and law enforcement’s ability to protect the public, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Motion to Suppress is GRANTED and the evidence flowing from the traffic stop is inadmissible.

Florida DUI Book

FLORIDA DUI BOOK – THE 10-DAY COUNTDOWN

If you have been arrested for DUI in Florida, the most important fact you need to know is this: you have 10 days to act. 10 years ago I wrote a DUI Defense Book. Now, in The 10-Day Countdown, I break down exactly how to defend a Florida DUI case from the moment the handcuffs come off to the courtroom battle that follows. As a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer and founder of https://dui2go.com/, I have built my career on challenging DUI stops, breath test procedures, refusal allegations, and administrative suspensions under Florida law.

You can review my professional credentials through my Florida Bar profile at https://www.floridabar.org/ and legal directory listings such as Justia and Avvo, where my DUI defense work is detailed and publicly accessible. This book is not theory. It is strategy. It is built on decades of litigation experience, sworn officer cross-examinations, Intoxilyzer challenges, and constitutional motions to suppress. If you are searching for a Florida DUI lawyer who understands the science, the statutes, and the courtroom psychology behind these cases, this book is your starting point. The clock is real. The defense is deliberate. And the first move is yours.

A Florida Lawyer’s Guide to Beating the DUI Odds

By W.F. Casey Ebsary

Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer

Introduction: A Word from the Author of the Florida DUI Book

To My Future Client,

If you are holding this Florida DUI Book, you are likely going through one of the most stressful periods of your life. I know the feeling. The prosecution wants you to believe that your case is an open-and-shut matter of “numbers” and “police reports.” I am here to tell you that they are wrong.

As a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer, I’ve spent my career finding the cracks in their “perfect” cases. Whether it’s a breathalyzer machine that hasn’t been calibrated, an officer who skipped a step in a roadside exercise, or a stop that violated your Constitutional rights, there is always a path forward.

At my firm, dui2go, we don’t just “process” cases; we deconstruct them. We use the same intensity I bring to my cycling trips—focus, endurance, and a refusal to quit—to fight for your driver’s license and your reputation. In this book, I’ve laid out 100 of the most critical questions I’ve answered over the decades. We are in this together. Let’s get to work.

Sincerely,

W.F. Casey Ebsary

Attorney at Law

dui2go.com

About the Florida DUI Book Author

When I am not in the courtroom at the Edgecomb Courthouse or reviewing body-cam footage at my office on West Cleveland Street, you can almost always find me on two wheels. As a dedicated cyclist, I spend a great deal of my time on the Pinellas Trail. Whether I’m navigating a long endurance ride or heading out on one of my e-bikes, cycling is more than just a hobby for me—it is a philosophy.

In cycling, there is a concept called “The Line.” It is the most efficient, safest path through a difficult curve. Finding that line requires focus, a deep understanding of your surroundings, and the technical skill to stay upright when the road gets rough.

I bring that same mindset to my legal practice.

Defending a DUI is an endurance sport. It requires a meticulous eye for detail—much like checking your tire pressure and gear ratios before a century ride. Just as a cyclist must be aware of every pothole and blind spot, a Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer must be aware of every procedural error and constitutional violation in a police report.

Living in Seminole and working in Tampa, I see the beauty of our community every day. But I also see how quickly a single interaction with law enforcement can derail a person’s life. When I take on your case, I am looking for “The Line”—the strategic path that leads to the best possible outcome for your future.

Whether I am white-water rafting in California or fighting a high-stakes felony charge in a Florida courtroom, I believe in preparation, momentum, and the refusal to coast. When you hire me, you aren’t just getting a lawyer; you are getting a teammate who understands that the only way to finish strong is to start with a plan.

I’ll see you on the trail—and I’ll see you in court.

W.F. Casey Ebsary Attorney, Cyclist, Advocate

Table of Contents

THE 10-DAY COUNTDOWN
A Florida Lawyer’s Guide to Beating the DUI Odds 1
By W.F. Casey Ebsary 1
PART I: THE DEFENSE FOUNDATION 6
Introduction: A Word from the Author 6
Chapter 1: The Critical 10-Day Window 7
Why the 10 Days Matter 7
The Moment the Clock Starts 8
The 10-Day Strategy Table 9
What I Do Immediately in a DUI Case 9
First, I File the Formal Review Request 9
Second, I Subpoena the Arresting Officer 10
Administrative vs. Criminal: Two Separate Battles 10
Chart: What Happens If You Miss the 10-Day Deadline 11
The Strategic Value of the Formal Review Hearing 11
Flow Chart: The First 30 Days After Arrest 12
What If You Already Missed the Deadline? 12
Frequently Asked Questions About the 10-Day Window 13
Does requesting the Formal Review guarantee I keep my license? 13
What is the difference between a Formal Review and a Waiver Review? 13
Can I get a hardship license if I request a Formal Review? 13
What happens if the officer does not appear? 13
Embedded Video Resource 14
My Philosophy on the First 10 Days 14
Final Thoughts: The Clock Is Real 15
Chapter 2: The Anatomy of a Stop 16
Why Every Florida DUI Case Begins With One Question: Why Were You Stopped? 16
The Constitutional Foundation: Reasonable Suspicion 16
“Driving or Actual Physical Control” 17
The Stop Comes First 18
Pretextual Stops: Fishing Expeditions 18
Chart: Common DUI Stop Justifications 19
The “Failure to Maintain Lane” Myth 20
Anonymous Tips and DUI Stops 20
Flow Chart: From Stop to Arrest 21
The Expansion of the Stop 21
Bodycam and Dashcam: The Silent Witness 22
Actual Physical Control: Parked Vehicle Cases 22
Frequently Asked Questions About DUI Stops 23
Can police stop me just because it is late at night? 23
If I admit I had a drink, does that justify the stop? 23
What if I turned from a closed bar parking lot? 23
Can a minor equipment issue justify a stop? 23
The Motion to Suppress 23
My Approach to DUI Stops 24
Final Thoughts: Every DUI Case Begins With a Flashing Light 25
Chapter 3: Accidents and the “Switching Hats” Rule 26
When a Crash Investigation Turns Into a Criminal DUI Case 26
Why Accident Cases Are Different 26
The Accident Report Privilege: Our Shield 27
The “Switching Hats” Moment 28
Table: Crash Investigation vs. Criminal Investigation 28
How This Plays Out in Real Cases 29
The Miranda Component 29
Chart: Common Suppression Arguments in Accident DUIs 30
The Compelled Statement Problem 31
Accident Cases and DUI2Go Strategy 31
Flow Chart: Accident DUI Timeline 32
Frequently Asked Questions About Accident DUIs 32
If I admit drinking during a crash investigation, is that automatically admissible? 32
What counts as a “hat switch”? 32
Do Miranda rights apply at every crash scene? 33
What if the officer never clearly switched roles? 33
Video Resources and Further Reading 33
Why This Chapter Matters 33
Final Thoughts: Timing Is Everything 34
PART II: THE SCIENCE AND THE COURTROOM 35
Chapter 4: The Truth About the Blow 35
What the Intoxilyzer 8000 Doesn’t Tell the Jury 35
The Machine Behind the Number 36
The Breath-Test Vulnerability Table 36
Mouth Alcohol: The Hidden Contaminant 37
The Partition Ratio Problem 38
The 20-Minute Rule 39
Maintenance Logs: The Paper Trail 39
Chart: How I Audit a Breath Case 40
Duplicate Sample Requirement 40
Medical Conditions and Breath Testing 41
Flow Chart: From Arrest to Breath Result 41
Frequently Asked Questions About Breath Testing 42
If I blew over .08, is the case hopeless? 42
Can maintenance issues really invalidate a test? 42
What if I have GERD? 42
Does refusing the test avoid these issues? 42
The Psychological Impact of the Number 42
My Approach to Breath Cases 43
Final Thoughts: The Machine Is Not the Judge 44
Chapter 5: The Truth About Refusal 45
Why Saying “No” Is Not the End of the Case 45
What the Officer Must Prove in a Refusal Case 45
Administrative Consequences of Refusal 46
The Refusal Warning: What Must Be Said 47
Table: Refusal Case Vulnerabilities 48
Was It Really a Refusal? 48
The Strategic Reality of Refusal 49
The Criminal Refusal Charge (Second Refusal) 50
Flow Chart: Refusal Case Timeline 50
The Jury Instruction Problem 50
Frequently Asked Questions About Refusal 51
Is refusal worse than blowing over .08? 51
Can I change my mind after refusing? 51
Does asking for an attorney count as refusal? 51
Can medical issues justify refusal? 51
My Perspective on Refusal Cases 52
Final Thoughts: Refusal Is Not the End 52
Chapter 6: High Stakes—CDL and Professional Licenses 54
PART III: THE 100 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS 55
PART IV: FINAL RESOURCES 81
Glossary of Terms 81
About the Author 82
APPENDIX: THE EMERGENCY CHECKLIST 83
THE DISCIPLINE OF THE DEFENSE: AN AUTHOR’S NOTE 84

Slow and Furious: The Legal Reality of Florida’s Low-Speed Chase

Summary: Low Speed Chase arrests in Florida are becoming increasingly common, even when the “pursuit” involves golf carts, riding lawn mowers, mobility scooters, or other non-traditional vehicles moving at walking speed. While these incidents often go viral as jokes on social media, Florida law enforcement treats many of these encounters as serious criminal investigations that can result in DUI, Fleeing and Eluding, or even Grand Theft charges.

In Florida, a Low-Speed Chase does not require high speeds, reckless driving, or a traditional automobile. Prosecutors rely on broad statutory definitions and expansive case law to argue that almost any motorized or steerable device operated on public property qualifies as a “vehicle.” As a result, what begins as a slow roll through a parking lot or neighborhood can quickly escalate into an arrest with lifelong consequences.

By W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Founder, DUI2go.com | Florida DUI & Criminal Defense

Low Speed Chase ? In Florida law enforcement, not all “pursuits” involve high speeds on I-95, I-75 or I-4. Lately, social media feeds and news headlines have been flooded with bizarre clips of slow-speed runaways and non-traditional “vehicles” — from motorized shopping carts at shopping centers to riding lawn mowers on public roads. To the casual observer, these stories seem absurd or even comedic, but the legal consequences are often anything but funny.

As a veteran Florida defense attorney, I regularly see people arrested for DUI, Fleeing and Eluding, and Grand Theft simply because they were operating devices most people would never consider “vehicles.” Unfortunately, when law enforcement applies Florida’s broad statutory definitions and prosecutors stack charges, the results can include jail time, felony convictions, and lifelong consequences.

What the Statute Actually Says About DUI in Florida

Under Florida law, a person is guilty of Low Speed Chase Driving Under the Influence if they are “driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle within this state” while impaired to the extent that their normal faculties are impaired or they have a prohibited blood or breath alcohol level. You can read the statute in full on Justia here: Florida Statute § 316.193.

Contrary to what many people believe, this statute does not specify that the device must be a car, truck, or motorcycle. The definition of “vehicle” in Florida traffic law is broad and includes almost any device capable of transporting a person or property — with few exceptions. So whether you are on a motorized shopping cart, golf cart, riding lawn mower, or even certain motor scooters, the statute applies if you were in “actual physical control” while impaired.

The Florida Bar’s criminal jury instructions specifically define “actual physical control” as being on or in the vehicle with the capability to operate it, even if you were not moving at the time.

Florida Lawn Mower DUI & Shopping Cart DUI Florida — Real Sightings

Below are actual video examples that show how unusual these Low Speed Chase arrests can look in practice.

This video captures a Florida man arrested for DUI while riding a lawn mower with alcohol in hand on a public roadway. Even though a lawn mower lacks airbags or highway speed capability, the law treats this device as a vehicle if it is self-propelled and the operator is impaired.

Here we see body-camera footage of law enforcement attempting to stop a suspect on a riding mower. Despite the slow rate of travel, deputies attempt to gain compliance, and the suspect’s movement — even at low speed — can later form the basis for additional charges under Florida’s fleeing statutes.

Why “Low-Speed” Isn’t a Defense — Fleeing and Eluding in Florida

Many people mistakenly assume that if they’re only going a few miles per hour, they cannot be charged with any serious offense related to flight. This is legally incorrect.

Under Florida Statute § 316.1935, it is a felony to willfully refuse to stop your vehicle when an authorized law enforcement officer signals you to do so. You can read the statute here: Florida Statute § 316.1935.

What the Law Requires

The law does not require that you drive at high speed or pose a danger to others to be guilty of Fleeing or Attempting to Elude. The critical element is your willful refusal to stop, not your velocity. Even a motorized cart proceeding at 1-3 mph, seeing flashing lights and a siren, that continues forward can satisfy the statute.

This is precisely why “low-speed pursuits” can lead to third-degree felony charges with mandatory incarceration consequences.

How These Cases Often Become Felonies

What begins as a smile-inducing viral moment can quickly balloon into multiple felony counts. Here are the common charges that may be filed in a Florida Lawn Mower DUI or Shopping Cart DUI Florida case:

• DUI

As noted above, the broad statutory definition of “vehicle” allows law enforcement to arrest for impaired operation of devices other than traditional automobiles.

• Fleeing and Eluding

A slow movement away from a law enforcement officer who has signaled you to stop may be charged as a felony of the third degree.

• Grand Theft

Under Florida Statute § 812.014 (Grand Theft), taking someone else’s motorized shopping cart or riding lawn mower valued over $750 can result in a felony theft charge. Justia Florida Statutes § 812.014)

Frequently Asked Questions: Shopping Cart Theft and Low-Speed Chase Crimes

Comparative Penalties — Low-Speed Devices vs. Traditional DUI

This table illustrates why many clients are stunned when a moment they thought was harmless ends in felony prosecution.

More Common Questions Clients Ask About Low-Speed DUI Cases

Can I Be Charged with a DUI on a Sidewalk or in a Parking Lot?

Yes. Florida DUI law does not limit enforcement to highways. If you are operating an impaired device in public spaces — including sidewalks and shopping center lots — you can be charged with DUI under §316.193.

Does a Lawnmower DUI Count as a “Prior” if I’m Later Arrested in a Car?

Absolutely. A DUI conviction becomes part of your Florida driving record. If you are later charged again — even in a traditional vehicle — this prior can enhance penalties under §316.193.

Will My Insurance Increase?

Yes. A DUI conviction — regardless of the vehicle involved — is reported to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and will almost certainly lead to insurance increases.

What If I Was Trying to Avoid an Ignition Interlock Device?

Attempting to bypass an IID by using a different type of vehicle does not exempt you from DUI laws and may violate court orders and probation.

Timeline: How a “Slow” Arrest Moves Fast in the Legal System

Missing the 10-day administrative deadline can permanently weaken your defense. This is one of the most important practical deadlines in DUI defense.

Get Help Early

💼 Arrested for a Lawn Mower DUI, Shopping Cart DUI, or Low-Speed Eluding?
You have only 10 days to request your administrative license review. Missing this deadline can severely limit your legal options.

👉 Speak Directly with Attorney W.F. Casey Ebsary:
☑ Aggressive defense in DUI & felony cases
☑ Challenge unlawful stops and misapplied statutes
☑ Protect your driver’s license and future

📞 Contact DUI2go Now: https://dui2go.com/contact/
📘 Learn about Casey’s experience: https://dui2go.com/about/

Frequently Asked Questions

Are Golf Cart DUIs Treated the Same in Retirement Communities?

Yes. Even if a golf cart is popular in a community, if it is used on public access ways and you are impaired, DUI laws apply.

Can These Charges Be Reduced?

In some cases, improper stops, lack of probable cause, or faulty testing procedures can result in reduced charges or dismissals — but that requires experienced legal advocacy.

Why You Need an Attorney Who Understands Unconventional DUI Cases

Many attorneys have experience with standard DUI arrests — but few deeply understand how actual physical control, unconventional modes of transport, and statutes like §316.193 and §316.1935 interact in Florida courts. An experienced defense team:

• Identifies weaknesses in the arrest
• Argues statutory misapplication
• Protects your driving privileges
• Advocates for reduced or alternative dispositions

Your Future Is Too Important to Risk

⭐ Don’t let a “slow” moment ruin your life.
Whether you were riding a mower, golf cart, or motorized cart while impaired, you deserve aggressive representation that treats your case with seriousness and strategy.

👉 Contact W.F. Casey Ebsary Today:
📞 https://dui2go.com/contact/
📘 Learn More About His Experience: https://dui2go.com/about/

When Leisure Turns Into a Criminal Charge

So can you be charged with DUI in a golf cart in Florida? Yes, in Florida law enforcement, not all “pursuits” involve high speeds on I-95, I-75, or I-4. Increasingly, DUI arrests involve golf carts moving slowly through residential neighborhoods, retirement communities, beach towns, and gated developments. What looks like a harmless ride home from the beach, a clubhouse, marina, or backyard gathering can quickly turn into a full DUI arrest — complete with license suspension, criminal prosecution, and lifelong consequences.

Florida’s golf-cart culture creates a dangerous misconception: that golf carts exist in some legal gray area where DUI laws do not apply. That belief is wrong. Under Florida law, a golf cart can absolutely be the basis for a DUI arrest, and in many cases, prosecutors pursue these charges aggressively because of the false sense of safety associated with low-speed vehicles.

As a veteran Florida DUI defense attorney, I have watched clients who were stunned to learn that a golf cart DUI carries the same criminal penalties as a DUI in a car, truck, or motorcycle.

Why Golf Cart DUI Cases Require Experienced Defense

Golf cart DUI cases often look simple on the surface, but they raise complex legal questions about jurisdiction, probable cause, actual physical control, and statutory interpretation. Officers frequently rely on assumptions rather than clear legal standards, and prosecutors often overcharge based on misconceptions about “easy” DUI convictions.

An experienced Florida DUI attorney evaluates whether the stop was lawful, whether the location was subject to DUI enforcement, whether impairment evidence was properly gathered, and whether testing complied with Florida’s strict procedural rules. These cases are far more defensible than many people realize — but only if action is taken early.

Golf Cart DUI Defense Matters

🚨 Arrested for a Golf Cart DUI in Florida?
You have only 10 days to challenge your driver’s license suspension.

✔ DUI defense for golf carts, lawn mowers, and non-traditional vehicles
✔ Administrative license hearing representation
✔ Aggressive courtroom advocacy statewide

👉 Learn about Attorney W.F. Casey Ebsary:
https://dui2go.com/about/

📞 Speak with DUI2go Now:
https://dui2go.com/contact/

Final Thoughts: Golf Cart DUI Is Not a Joke

Florida’s relaxed golf-cart culture has created a false sense of legal safety. In reality, DUI law applies with full force — and sometimes greater severity — in these cases. What begins as a slow ride home can end in criminal court, license revocation, and long-term consequences that follow you for life.

If you or a loved one has been arrested for a Florida Golf Cart DUI, do not assume the case is minor or unimportant. The law does not treat it that way — and neither should you.

👉 Protect your future. Contact DUI2go today:
https://dui2go.com/contact/