| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: BARR, JOSHUA 1338 (AR16-20921) 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 NORMAL FACULTIES WERE IMPAIRED, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 316.193. ON 090916, WHILE PARKED ALONG THE SIDE OF NORTH CITRUS AVENUE, IN CRYSTAL RIVER, I WAS APPROACHED BY A WHITE TWO DOOR VEHICLE, WHICH WAS FLASHING ITS LIGHTS AT ME AND THE PASSENGER WAS ATTEMPTING TO GAIN MY ATTENTION BY WAIVING THEIR ARM OUT THE WINDOW AT ME. THE VEHICLE PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, AT WHICH TIME THE COMPLAINANT/VEHICLE PASSENGER, MR CARLOS GONZALEZ, EXITED THE VEHICLE AND INFORMED ME THAT A GRAY PICKUP TRUCK THAT HAD JUST DROVE BY WAS TAILGATING HIS VEHICLE, WHICH WAS BEING DROVE BY HIS SON/WITNESS, CARLOS GONZALEZ. THE COMPLAINANT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE NEARLY STRUCK THEM MULTIPLE TIMES. AT THAT TIME, I DROVE WESTBOUND ON NORTH CITRUS AVENUE, WHERE I CAUGHT UP WITH A GRAY FORD PICKUP TRUCK, BEARING FLORIDA LICENSE PLATE 645KBD. I OBSERVED THE PICKUP TRUCK TO CROSS THE CENTER LINE WITH BOTH THE FRONT AND REAR DRIVERâS SIDE TIRES. AT THAT TIME, I ACTIVATED MY EMERGENCY LIGHTS AND ATTEMPTED TO INITIATE A TRAFFIC STOP ON THE VEHICLE; HOWEVER, THE VEHICLE CONTINUED DRIVING WESTBOUND ON NORTH CITRUS AVENUE. THE VEHICLE THEN TURNED LEFT ON WEST TOM MASON DRIVE. I CONTINUED TO FOLLOW THE VEHICLE WITH MY EMERGENCY LIGHTS ACTIVATED FOR APPROXIMATELY 100 YARDS BEFORE THE VEHICLE PULLED TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD AND CAME TO A STOP. I THEN EXITED MY PATROL VEHICLE AND APPROACHED THE DRIVERâS SIDE WINDOW OF THE GRAY FORD PICKUP TRUCK. PRIOR TO REACHING THE DRIVERâS SIDE WINDOW, I COULD DETECT A STRONG ODOR OF ALCOHOL COMING FROM INSIDE THE VEHICLE. UPON REACHING THE DRIVERâS SIDE WINDOW, WHICH WAS ROLLED DOWN, I OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT, MR MICHAEL MAYO, TO BE THE DRIVER AND ONLY OCCUPANT OF THE VEHICLE. I ALSO OBSERVED AN OPEN BUD LIGHT BOTTLE IN THE DRIVERâS CUP HOLDER. UPON INTRODUCING MYSELF TO THE DEFENDANT AND ASKING HIM WHERE HE WAS COMING FROM THIS EVENING, THE DEFENDANT SLURRED HIS SPEECH AND WAS UNABLE TO GIVE AN ANSWER AS TO WHERE HE WAS COMING FROM. THE DEFENDANT REPEATEDLY STATED THAT HE WAS COMING FROM ââTOWN,ââ BUT STATED HE COULD NOT PROVIDE A MORE SPECIFIC ANSWER. AT THAT TIME, I ASKED THE DEFENDANT TO EXIT THE VEHICLE. UPON THE DEFENDANT OPENING THE DRIVERâS SIDE DOOR AND EXITING THE VEHICLE, HE FELL BACKWARDS AGAINST HIS OPEN VEHICLE DOOR AND HAD DIFFICULTY GAINING HIS BALANCE TO STAND. THE COMPLAINANT AND WITNESS THEN ARRIVED ON SCENE AND PULLED BEHIND MY PATROL VEHICLE. DEPUTY LABORDA (0735) ARRIVED ON SCENE AS BACKUP. BASED ON THE DEFENDANTâS BEHAVIOR, THE STRONG ODOR OF ALCOHOL, AND THE OPEN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE INSIDE THE VEHICLE, I BELIEVED THE DEFENDANT TO BE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL AT THE TIME HE WAS OPERATING THE VEHICLE. I READ THE DEFENDANT HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS, VIA AN AGENCY ISSUED PREPRINTED MIRANDA CARD, TO WHICH THE DEFENDANT STATED HE UNDERSTOOD HIS RIGHTS AND WOULD ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT I HAD. UPON ASKING THE DEFENDANT WHERE HE WAS COMING FROM, HE STATED HE WAS COMING FROM CRACKERâS RESTAURANT AND HE HAD BEEN THERE ALL EVENING. I ASKED THE DEFENDANT HOW MANY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES HE HAD CONSUMED WHILE AT THE RESTAURANT, TO WHICH HE STATED ââENOUGH.ââ I ASKED THE DEFENDANT TO PLEASE BE MORE SPECIFIC AND HE STATED HE COULD NOT PROVIDE AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT IT WAS A LOT AND HE JUST WANTED TO GO HOME. I ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF HE HAD BEEN DRINKING INSIDE THE VEHICLE AND INFORMED HIM THAT I OBSERVED THE OPEN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE IN HIS CUP HOLDER, TO WHICH HE STATED ââI DONâT KNOW. THAT BEER COULD BE FROM YESTERDAY, THE DAY BEFORE, OR TODAY. I AM A GOOD OLâ BOY AND I DO THIS ALL THE TIME.ââ I ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF HE BELIEVED HE WAS TOO INTOXICATED TO BE DRIVING A VEHICLE, TO WHICH HE SHRUGGED HIS SHOULDERS AND STATED ââPROBABLY.ââ I THEN ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF HE WOULD BE WILLING TO SUBMIT TO FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING, TO WHICH HE STATED HE WOULD. PRIOR TO CONDUCTING THE FIELD SOBRIETY TASKS, I AGAIN SPOKE TO THE COMPLAINANT AND WITNESS WHO STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT DROVE UP BEHIND THEM AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED AND NEARLY STRUCK THEIR VEHICLE. THEY STATED THAT IT APPEARED AS THOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS POSSIBLY ATTEMPTING TO STRIKE THEM ON PURPOSE BECAUSE HE SLOWED DOWN AND SPED UP TO THEM NUMEROUS TIMES. THE COMPLAINANT AND THE WITNESS APPEARED VERY FRIGHTENED AND SHAKEN BY THE INCIDENT. AFTER GATHERING THE COMPLAINANT AND WITNESSâ INFORMATION, THEY LEFT THE SCENE IN THEIR VEHICLE. AT THAT TIME, I ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF HE HAD ANY MENTAL OR PHYSICAL DISABILITIES THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW HIM TO PERFORM ANY OF THE SOBRIETY TASKS, TO WHICH HE STATED THAT HE DID NOT. THE DEFENDANT THEN PERFORMED FOUR FIELD SOBRIETY TASKS AT MY DIRECTION, AS DEPUTY LABORDA OBSERVED, WITH THE FOLLOWING RESULTS: TASK ONE, HORIZONTAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS. PRIOR TO PERFORMING THIS TASK, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH HIS EYES. 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. TASK TWO, ONE LEG STAND. THIS TASK WAS EXPLAINED AND DEMONSTRATED TO THE DEFENDANT. THE DEFENDANT CONTINUOUSLY ATTEMPTED TO BEGIN THE TASK WHILE I WAS PROVIDING THE INSTRUCTIONS, DESPITE BEING INSTRUCTED NUMEROUS TIMES TO WAIT. DURING THIS TASK, THE DEFENDANT DID NOT PROPERLY FOLLOW DIRECTIONS AND BEGAN TO COUNT FROM ONE TO THREE VERY QUICKLY, WITHOUT SAYING âMISSISSIPPIâ AFTER EACH NUMBER. THE DEFENDANT THEN ATTEMPTED TO CORRECT THIS BY STARTING OVER AND STATING âONE MISSISSIPPIâ HE THEN SKIPPED âTWO MISSISSIPPIâ AND STATED âTHREE MISSISSIPPI.â THE DEFENDANT THEN PLACED HIS FOOT ON THE GROUND AND STATED ââI AM DONE WITH THAT ONE.ââ TASK THREE, FINGER TO NOSE. THIS TASK WAS EXPLAINED AND DEMONSTRATED TO THE DEFENDANT. THE DEFENDANT CONTINUOUSLY ATTEMPTED TO BEGIN THE TASK DURING THE TIME THAT I WAS GIVING THE INSTRUCTIONS, DESPITE BEING TOLD NUMEROUS TIMES TO WAIT. DURING THIS TASK, I INSTRUCTED THE DEFENDANT TO USE HIS LEFT HAND TO TOUCH HIS NOSE; HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT USED HIS RIGHT HAND. THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ABLE TO PROPERLY TOUCH HIS NOSE AND INSTEAD PLACED HIS ENTIRE RIGHT HAND OVER HIS FACE AND LEFT IT THERE FOR SEVERAL SECONDS. AT THAT TIME, THE DEFENDANT BEGAN TO LEAN HEAVILY TO THE LEFT AS IF HE WAS GOING TO FALL. THE DEFENDANT THEN STATED, ââI AM DONE WITH THIS ONE TOO.ââ TASK FOUR, WALK AND TURN. THIS TASK WAS EXPLAINED AND DEMONSTRATED TO THE DEFENDANT. DURING THIS TASK, THE DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO WALK IN A STRAIGHT LINE AND CONTINUOUSLY LEANED AND STRAYED TO THE LEFT. THE DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO WALK HEEL-TO-TOE, BUT INSTEAD TOOK WIDE STEPS AND LEFT WIDE GAPS BETWEEN HIS FEET. THE DEFENDANT WAS INSTRUCTED TO TURN AROUND ON HIS NINTH STEP, BUT INSTEAD TOOK ELEVEN STEPS PRIOR TO TURNING AROUND AND TOOK ELEVEN STEPS BACK. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE TASKS WERE ADMINISTERED ON A REASONABLY FLAT/LEVEL SURFACE. ALL VISIBLE OBSTRUCTIONS WERE REMOVED PRIOR TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE TASKS. AT THAT TIME, THE DEFENDANT WAS PLACED UNDER ARREST FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE. PRIOR TO LEAVING THE SCENE, THE DEFENDANT'S VEHICLE WAS PULLED OFF THE ROADWAY, SECURED, AND LEFT ON SCENE PER THE DEFENDANTâS REQUEST. THE DEFENDANT WAS THEN TRANSPORTED TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY WHERE HE WAS READ HIS IMPLIED CONSENT. THE DEFENDANT REFUSED TO SUBMIT TO THE APPROVED TEST OF HIS BREATH. THE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE WITH A $1,000.00 BOND PER THE BOND SCHEDULE. THE DEFENDANT WAS ISSUED A FLORIDA DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CITATION, NUMBER 9840-XCO 6, WITH A MANDATORY COURT APPEARANCE ON 101016 AT 0845 HOURS AT THE CITRUS COUNTY COURTHOUSE. |
