| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: SUDLOW, JAMES 0759 (2012-1740AR) DID DRIVE OR WAS IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONTROL OF A VEHICLE WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE, MODEL GLUE OR ANY SUBSTANCE CONTROLLED UNDER CHAPTER 893 OR CHAPTER 877.111 TO THE EXTENT HIS/HER NORMAL FACULTIES WERE IMPAIRED, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 316.193(1). ON 062612 WHILE CONDUCTING TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT TRAVELLING NORTHBOUND ON SOUTH SUNCOAST BOULEVARD IN HOMOSASSA, I OBSERVED A GRAY IN COLOR TOYOTA 4-DOOR TRAVELLING SOUTHBOUND ON SOUTH SUNCOAST BOULEVARD AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED. I ESTIMATED SPEED AT APPROXIMATELY 56 MILES PER HOUR (MPH). WHEN I ACTIVATED MY PYTHON RADAR DEVICE IT SHOWED SPEED AT 58 MPH IN A 45 MPH SPEED ZONE. AS I TURNED AROUND ON THE VEHICLE I ALSO OBSERVED THE VEHICLE TO HAVE THE PASSENGER’S SIDE TAIL LAMP TO BE INOPERABLE. AS I CAUGHT UP TO THE VEHICLE I OBSERVED THE VEHICLE TO BE WEAVING FROM THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE FOG LINE OVER TO THE MIDDLE LINE AND BACK TOWARDS THE RIGHT-HAND FOG LINE APPROXIMATELY FIVE TIMES. AT THAT TIME, I INITIATED ALL MY VEHICLE’S EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT AND INITIATED THE TRAFFIC STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH SUNCOAST BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OAKRIDGE DRIVE. THE LICENSE PLATE ON THE VEHICLE IN QUESTION WAS K48-4HT. WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS STOPPING THE DRIVER CAME TO AN ABRUPT HALT ALMOST IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH OAKRIDGE DRIVE AND SOUTH SUNCOAST BOULEVARD UPON MAKING CONTACT WITH THE DRIVER, WHO WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE DEFENDANT MS MELISSA MELVIN, I OBSERVED HER EYES TO BE GLASSY AND HER SPEECH TO BE SLURRED AS WELL AS A FLUSHED FACE. THERE WAS ALSO AN ODOR OF AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE EMITTING FROM THE VEHICLE. I ASKED HER IF SHE HAD ANYTHING TO DRUNK, TO WHICH SHE SAID, “NO, SIR. I DO NOT DRINK.” I THEN ADVISED HER WHY I HAD PULLED HER OVER, WHICH WAS FOR SPEEDING AND INOPERABLE TAIL LAMP. AT THAT TIME, I ASKED THE DRIVER TO EXIT THE VEHICLE. WHILE THE DRIVE WAS EXITING SHE USED THE DOOR AND THE SIDE OF HER CAR FOR SUPPORT WHILE WALKING BACK TO MY PATROL VEHICLE. I ASKED THE DRIVER IF SHE WOULD BE WILLING TO SUBMIT TO SEVERAL FIELD SOBRIETY TASKS, TO WHICH SHE RESPONDED, “I DON’T KNOW WHY, BUT SURE.” I ADVISED THE DRIVER IT WAS DUE TO HER ERRATIC DRIVING HABITS PRIOR TO MY TRAFFIC STOP. AT THAT TIME, I ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF SHE HAD ANY MENTAL OR PHYSICAL DISABILITIES THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW HER TO PERFORM ANY OF THE SOBRIETY TASKS, TO WHICH SHE ASKED, “WHAT ARE THESE TESTS?” AT THAT TIME, I EXPLAINED THESE TASKS TO HER. SHE ADVISED, “DUE TO ME BEING FAT IT MIGHT BE HARD FOR ME TO STAND ON ONE LEG AND TO WALK IN A STRAIGHT LINE.” I ADVISED HER THAT I WOULD TAKE THAT FACTOR INTO CONSIDERATION. I ASKED HER IF SHE HAD ANY OTHER MENTAL OR PHYSICAL CONDITIONS. SHE ADVISED SHE HAD A CONCUSSION APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AGO. I ASKED THE DRIVER IF THAT WOULD AFFECT HER ABILITY TO PERFORM THESE TASKS TODAY, TO WHICH SHE REPLIED, “NO.” TASK ONE, HORIZONTAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS. PRIOR TO PERFORMING THIS TASK, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH HER EYES. PRIOR TO PERFORMING THIS TASK, I ADVISED THE DEFENDANT TO STAND WITH HER FEET TOGETHER AND HER HANDS DOWN BY HER SIDE AND TO NOT MOVE FROM THAT POSITION UNTIL I TELL HER TO BEGIN. WHILE EXPLAINING THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE DEFENDANT SHE SEPARATED HER FEET ON FOUR DIFFERENT OCCASIONS AND PICKED HER ARMS UP AND CROSSED THEM IN FRONT OF HER ON FIVE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. AT EACH POINT WHEN SHE SEPARATED HER FEET OR CROSSED HER ARMS I STOPPED THE INSTRUCTIONAL PHASE AND HAD HER RESUME THE STARTING POSITION AND THEN RESTARTED THE INSTRUCTIONAL PHASE FROM THE BEGINNING. DURING THIS TASK, THERE WAS EQUAL TRACKING AND EQUAL PUPIL SIZE IN BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT EYES. THERE WAS LACK OF SMOOTH PURSUIT IN BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT EYES. THERE WAS DISTINCT SUSTAINED HORIZONTAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS AT MAXIMUM DEVIATION IN BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT EYES. ALSO, THERE WAS ONSET OF HORIZONTAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS PRIOR TO FORTY-FIVE DEGREES IN THE LEFT AND RIGHT EYE. THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE VERTICAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS. THE DEFENDANT MOVED HER HEAD FROM LEFT TO RIGHT WHILE FOLLOWING THE PEN APPROXIMATELY FIVE TIMES. EACH TIME THE DEFENDANT FOLLOWED THE PEN WITH HER WHOLE HEAD. I ADVISED HER TO KEEP HER HEAD STILL AND FOLLOW THE PEN WITH HER EYES, TO WHICH SHE REPLIED, ”I AM.” TASK TWO, WALK AND TURN. THIS TASK WAS EXPLAINED AND DEMONSTRATED TO THE DEFENDANT. THE DEFENDANT STATED SHE UNDERSTOOD. PRIOR TO BEGINNING THIS TASK, THE DEFENDANT WAS WEARING A PAIR OF HIGH HEEL SANDALS. I ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF SHE WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE ON HER BARE FEET, AT WHICH TIME, SHE ADVISED WITH,” WHY I DON’T CARE. THIS IS A SET UP.” DURING THE INSTRUCTIONAL PHASE OF THIS TASK I ASKED THE DEFENDANT TO PLACE HER LEFT FOOT IN FRONT OF HER RIGHT FOOT AND TOUCH HEEL-TO-TOE AND PLACE BOTH ARMS DOWN BY HER SIDE AND TO REMAIN IN THAT POSITION UNTIL YOU ARE THROUGH WITH THIS TASK. WHILE I WAS EXPLAINING THIS TO THE DEFENDANT SHE STEPPED OUT OF THE INSTRUCTION STANCE ON SIX DIFFERENT OCCASIONS, ON TWO OCCASIONS SHE WENT BACK TO THE INSTRUCTION PHASE RIGHT FOOT IN FRONT OF HER LEFT FOOT AND SHE WAS USING HER ARMS FOR BALANCE ON FIVE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. EVERY TIME THE DEFENDANT DEVIATED FROM THE STARTING POSITION I STOPPED THE INSTRUCTIONAL PHASE AND ADVISED HER TO GET BACK INTO THE STARTING POSITION AND STARTED THE INSTRUCTION OVER FROM THE BEGINNING. THE DEFENDANT GOT VERY IRATE WITH ME BECAUSE SHE WAS BLAMING HER BEING OVERWEIGHT FOR THE REASON SHE COULD NOT KEEP HEEL-TO-TOE. DURING THIS TASK, THE DEFENDANT DID NOT COUNT OUT LOUD, USED HER ARMS FOR BALANCE ON FIVE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS THROUGHOUT THE TASK, DID NOT TOUCH HEEL-TO-TOE ON STEPS 1, 2, 5 AND 6 ON THE FIRST NINE. ON THE SECOND NINE SHE DID NOT TOUCH HEEL-TO-TOE ON STEPS 2, 5, AND 6. SHE THEN STEPPED OFF LINE ON COUNTS 1, 2, 5, 6, AND 7. THE DEFENDANT DID NOT KEEP HER FRONT FOOT PLANTED ON THE GROUND DURING THE RETURN AS INSTRUCTED TO AND DID NOT TAKE NINE STEPS ON HER FIRST NINE AND ON THE RETURN NINE. TASK THREE, ONE LEG STAND. THIS TASK WAS EXPLAINED AND DEMONSTRATED TO THE DEFENDANT. THE DEFENDANT STATED SHE UNDERSTOOD. PRIOR TO HER BEGINNING THIS TASK, I ASKED THE DEFENDANT TO PLACE HER FEET TOGETHER AND PLACE HER HANDS DOWN BY HER SIDES AND NOT TO DEVIATE OR MOVE FROM THIS POSITION UNTIL THIS TASK WAS COMPLETE. DURING MY INSTRUCTIONAL PHASE, THE DEFENDANT SEPARATED HER FEET ON FOUR DIFFERENT OCCASIONS, USED HER ARMS FOR BALANCE ON THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS AND CROSSED HER ARMS ON FOUR DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. EVERY TIME THE DEFENDANT DEVIATED FROM THE STARTING POSITION I INSTRUCTED THE DEFENDANT TO RESUME THE STARTING POSITION AND STARTED THE INSTRUCTIONAL PHASE OVER FROM THE BEGINNING. BEFORE SHE STARTED THE TASK AFTER GETTING THROUGH THE INSTRUCTIONAL PHASE, I ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF SHE UNDERSTOOD, TO WHICH SHE ADVISED “YES”. THE DEFENDANT DID NOT COUNT OUT LOUD, SHE USED HER ARMS FOR BALANCE ON SEVEN DIFFERENT OCCASIONS, DID NOT LOOK DOWN AT HER TOES AND PUT HER FOOT DOWN FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES. AT THAT TIME, I PLACED THE DEFENDANT UNDER ARREST FOR DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE (DUI). SHE WAS HANDCUFFED (DOUBLE LOCKED) BEHIND HER BACK. PRIOR TO BEING PLACED IN THE REAR SEAT OF MY PATROL VEHICLE SHE WAS READ HER IMPLIED CONSENT AND HER MIRANDA RIGHTS FROM A PREPRINTED AGENCY ISSUED CARD, TO WHICH SHE ADVISED SHE UNDERSTOOD. THE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS MOVED FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION AND PARKED IN SONNY DAY’S PLAZA PARKING LOT PER THE OWNER’S REQUEST. THE DEFENDANT WAS TRANSPORTED TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY FOR BOOKING AND PROCESSING. ONCE AT THE JAIL, THE DEFENDANT STATED THAT SHE WOULD SUBMIT TO THE APPROVED TEST OF HER BREATH WITH HER RESULTS BEING .094 AND .091. THE DEFENDANT WAS ISSUED DUI CITATION NUMBER 4976-XDX5 AND TWO WARNING CITATIONS. SHE RECEIVED WARNING CITATION NUMBER 352513B, FOR UNLAWFUL SPEED 58 MPH IN A 45 MPH SPEED ZONE AND WARNING CITATION NUMBER 352513B, FOR FAULTY EQUIPMENT PASSENGERS TAIL LAMP INOPERABLE. HER BOND WAS SET AT $500.00, PER THE BOND SCHEDULE. |
