| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: HOLTZHOUSE, JONATHAN 0616 (2012-1894AR) 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 070812 AT APPROXIMATELY 2033 HOURS, I RESPONDED TO THE BELLA OASIS MOTEL IN HOMOSASSA IN REFERENCE TO A DISTURBANCE. UPON MY ARRIVAL, I MADE CONTACT WITH THE MANAGER, WHO ADVISED THE DEFENDANT, MR MICHAEL OUTWATER, HAD RENTED ROOM 251 AND HAD ALLOWED APPROXIMATELY TEN PEOPLE TO STAY IN THE ROOM AND THE POOL AREA. THE MANAGER ADVISED HE JUST WANTED THE DEFENDANT TO BE TRESPASSED AND ASKED TO LEAVE. WHILE STANDING WITH THE MANAGER MR OUTWATER WAS OBSERVED LEAVING THE PARKING LOT IN A BLACK HYUNDAI ELANTRA. MR OUTWATER LEFT HEADING SOUTHBOUND ON HIGHWAY 19, AT WHICH TIME, I GOT IN MY PATROL VEHICLE AND ATTEMPTED TO CATCH UP WITH MR OUTWATER. I EVENTUALLY CAUGHT UP WITH MR OUTWATER IN THE AREA OF WEST GROVER CLEVELAND BOULEVARD AND SOUTH CENTENNIAL AVENUE WHERE I CONDUCTED A TRAFFIC STOP ON THE VEHICLE. I THEN MADE CONTACT WITH MR OUTWATER AND ASKED FOR HIS DRIVERâS LICENSE AND REGISTRATION AND THEN ASKED HIM ABOUT THE INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED AT THE MOTEL. MR OUTWATER STATED THAT HE HAD GOTTEN INTO A CONFRONTATION WITH THE MANAGER ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE STAYING IN THE ROOM. HE ADVISED THE MANAGER AND HIM GOT INTO A FINGER POINTING MATCH AND THAT THERE WAS SOME SLIGHT PUSHING THAT OCCURRED AND HE STATED THE MANAGER HAD ASKED HIM TO LEAVE. WHILE SPEAKING WITH MR OUTWATER I COULD SMELL A STRONG ODOR OF AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE EMITTING FROM HIS BREATH. I ASKED MR OUTWATER IF HE HAD BEEN DRINKING TODAY, TO WHICH HE STATED, âYES, ALL DAY.â I THEN WENT BACK TO MY PATROL CAR AND RAN MR OUTWATER THROUGH FCIC/NCIC. I THEN WENT BACK UP TO MR OUTWATER AND ASKED HIM TO STEP OUT OF THE VEHICLE. I THEN HAD MR OUTWATER STEP TO THE REAR OF HIS VEHICLE WHERE THE SURFACE WAS FLAT. 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 HAD BRAIN INJURIES YEARS AGO AND POST TRAUMATIC STRESS SYNDROME, AS WELL AS A BAD LEFT KNEE. 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, FINGER TO NOSE: THIS TASK WAS EXPLAINED AND DEMONSTRATED TO THE DEFENDANT. THE DEFENDANT STATED HE UNDERSTOOD. THE DEFENDANT WHEN INSTRUCTED TOOK HIS RIGHT INDEX FINGER AND RAISED IT TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF HIS NOSE AND HELD IT THERE UNTIL I INSTRUCTED HIM TO REMOVE IT. I AGAIN EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS TO JUST TOUCH THE TIP OF HIS NOSE AND THEN PUT HIS HAND BACK DOWN. I THEN HAD HIM TAKE HIS RIGHT INDEX FINGER AGAIN AND TOUCH THE TIP OF HIS NOSE, TO WHICH HE TOUCHED THE RIGHT SIDE AND THE BRIDGE OF HIS NOSE. HE THEN LEFT IT THERE UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO REMOVE IT. I THEN HAD THE DEFENDANT TAKE HIS LEFT FINGER AND TOUCH THE TIP OF HIS NOSE, TO WHICH HE TOUCHED THE LEFT SIDE OF HIS NOSE AND HELD HIS FINGER THERE. THE DEFENDANT REPEATED THIS TASK WITH HIS LEFT FINGER AND RIGHT INDEX FINGER. EACH TIME THE DEFENDANT TOUCHED THE TIP OF HIS NOSE I HAD TO REMIND HIM TO REMOVE HIS FINGER FROM HIS NOSE AS INSTRUCTED. TASK THREE, WALK AND TURN. THIS TASK WAS EXPLAINED AND DEMONSTRATED TO THE DEFENDANT AND THE DEFENDANT STATED HE UNDERSTOOD. DURING THIS TASK, THE DEFENDANT DID NOT STAND AS INSTRUCTED INSTEAD TRIED TO START THE TASK WITHOUT BEING TOLD TO. AFTER TELLING THE DEFENDANT FOR THE THIRD TIME TO STAND IN ONE POSITION HE STATED HE COULD NOT DO THIS TASK AND THAT TO JUST ARREST HIM. I EXPLAINED TO THE DEFENDANT THAT I WAS GIVING HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE THE TASK, TO WHICH HE STATED HE WAS NOT GOING TO DO IT. TASK FOUR, ROMBERG TASK: THE DEFENDANT COMPLETED THIS TASK SUCCESSFULLY. AT THAT TIME, THE DEFENDANT WAS PLACED UNDER ARREST FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE. HE WAS HANDCUFFED DOUBLE LOCKED BEHIND THE BACK AND PLACED IN THE BACK OF MY PATROL VEHICLE. THE DEFENDANT WAS THEN TRANSPORTED TO THE JAIL FOR BOOKING AND PROCESSING. THE DEFENDANTâS DAUGHTER RESPONDED TO PICK UP THE DEFENDANTâS VEHICLE. ONCE AT THE JAIL, THE DEFENDANT WAS READ IMPLIED CONSENT AND ASKED IF HE WOULD SUBMIT TO THE APPROVED TEST OF HIS BREATH FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE ALCOHOL CONTENT OF HIS BLOOD. THE DEFENDANT RESPECTFULLY STATED THAT HE WOULD NOT SUBMIT TO THE APPROVED TEST OF HIS BREATH. THE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE WITH A $500.00 BOND PER THE BOND SCHEDULE. THE DEFENDANT WAS ISSUED A FLORIDA DUI UNIFORM TRAFFIC CITATION, NUMBER 7140-XGA5, WITH A MANDATORY COURT APPEARANCE OF 072612 AT 1300 AT THE CITRUS COUNTY COURTHOUSE. |
