| Probable cause affidavit: |
SUBMITTED BY: PATTERSON, DEREK 0560 (AR08105618) 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 HER NORMAL FACULTIES WERE IMPAIRED, IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 316.193(1). ON 100708 I WAS DISPATCHED TO THE AREA OF THE CIRCLE-K IN REFERENCE TO A RECKLESS DRIVER. WHILE EN ROUTE TO THE CALL THE DISPATCH SCREEN ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS "ALL OVER THE ROADWAY", THAT IT WAS GOING INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND HAD STRUCK A GUARD RAIL ON GOBBLER DRIVE AND CONTINUED DRIVING. THE DISPATCH SCREEN ALSO ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS CURRENTLY IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE CIRCLE-K AT THE GAS PUMPS AND THAT THE VEHICLE WAS A RED MAZDA FOUR DOOR WITH FLORIDA TAG F972LG. AS I WAS COMING ON SCENE, I OBSERVED THE RED MAZDA PULLED UP TO THE GAS PUMPS AND CONFIRMED THAT THE VEHICLE TAG MATCHED THE DISPATCH SCREEN. I THEN MADE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT WHO WAS SITTING IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT WITH THE KEYS IN THE IGNITION. I THEN ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF SHE HAD BEEN IN ANY KIND OF CRASH, TO WHICH SHE RESPONDED SHE HAD NOT. DURING THIS TIME I NOTED THAT THE DEFENDANT'S SPEECH WAS SLIGHTLY SLURRED. I THEN WALKED AROUND TO THE PASSENGER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE AND NOTICED FRESH DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE. I THEN ASKED THE DEFENDANT WHAT HAD HAPPENED, TO WHICH SHE REPLIED IT WAS OLD DAMAGE. I THEN POINTED OUT TO THE DEFENDANT THAT THE DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE APPEARED NEW, AND SHOWED HER THAT THE SCRAPE MARKS WERE STILL SHINY AND THERE WAS STILL FRESH PAINT DUST IN THAT AREA. AS I WAS SPEAKING WITH THE DEFENDANT, THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT CAME UP TO ME AND TOLD ME SHE HAD BEEN FOLLOWING THE DEFENDANT AND THAT DURING THAT TIME THE DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING CARELESSLY; WEAVING INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC AND SHE HAD OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT HIT THE GUARD RAIL AND CONTINUE ON GOBBLER DRIVE UNTIL SHE PULLED INTO THE PARKING LOT. THE COMPLAINANT CONTINUED SURVEILLANCE OF THE VEHICLE UNTIL LAW ENFORCEMENT ARRIVED AND POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT AS THE DRIVER WHICH SHE HAD SEEN EXIT THE VEHICLE. I ONCE AGAIN MADE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT, READ HER MIRANDA RIGHTS VIA CARD, TO WHICH SHE STATED SHE UNDERSTOOD AND DESIRED TO SPEAK WITH ME IN REGARDS TO THIS CASE. THE DEFENDANT STATED SHE HAD A VICODEN AT APPROXIMATELY 0400 HOURS ON THIS DATE AND THAT SHE HAD NOT HAD ANY ADDITIONAL PILLS OR DRINKS SINCE THAT TIME. I THEN ASKED THE DEFENDANT TO STEP OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND EXPLAINED TO HER THAT I HAD CONCERNS FOR HER ABILITY TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE AND ASKED HER TO SUBMIT TO ROADSIDE SOBRIETY TASKS, TO WHICH SHE AGREED. PRIOR TO PERFORMING THE TASKS 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 HE/SHE STATED THAT SHE HAD PINS AND SCREWS IN HER BACK FOR APPROXIMATELY THE PAST TEN YEARS BUT THAT SHE CAN WALK AND OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH NO PROBLEM. THE DEFENDANT ADDITIONALLY STATED SHE DID NOT WEAR CONTACTS AND DOES NOT SUFFER FROM DIABETES. TASK ONE, HORIZONTAL GAZE NYSTAGMUS. PRIOR TO PERFORMING THIS TASK, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH HIS/HER EYES. DURING THIS TASK, THERE WAS LACK OF SMOOTH PURSUIT IN BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT EYE. ALSO, THERE WAS ONSET OF SEVERE NYSTAGMUS PRIOR TO FORTY-FIVE DEGREES IN THE LEFT AND RIGHT EYE. THERE WAS DISTINCT NYSTAGMUS AT MAXIMUM DEVIATION IN BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT EYE. AT THAT TIME I EXPLAINED TO THE DEFENDANT WE WERE GOING TO RELOCATE IN THE PARKING LOT TO CONTINUE THE TASKS, IN AN AREA WHICH WAS FLAT AND HAD A PREPRINTED LINE. THE DEFENDANT STATED SHE UNDERSTOOD AND WHEN I ASKED HER TO ACCOMPANY ME SHE THEN GOT BACK INTO HER VEHICLE AND REMOVED THE KEYS FROM THE IGNITION. I THEN OPENED THE DOOR AND ONCE AGAIN INFORMED THE DEFENDANT I NEEDED HER TO FOLLOW ME, AT WHICH TIME SHE COMPLIED. TASK TWO, WALK AND TURN. THIS TASK WAS EXPLAINED AND DEMONSTRATED TO THE DEFENDANT. PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE TASK THE DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO REMOVE HER SANDALS.. THE DEFENDANT TOOK TEN STEPS INSTEAD OF THE INSTRUCTED NINE ON HER FIRST ATTEMPT, FAILED TO TOUCH HEEL TO TOE AND FAILED TO TAKE A SERIES OF SMALL STEPS AND RETURN TO THE STARTING POINT AS INSTRUCTED. ON THE SECOND ATTEMPT THE DEFENDANT TOOK NINE STEPS, ONCE AGAIN FAILING TO TOUCH HEEL TO TOE ON EACH ATTEMPT AND FAILED TO TAKE A SERIES OF SMALL STEPS ON THE RETURN AS INSTRUCTED. THIS TASK WAS THEN ENDED. TASK THREE, ONE LEG STAND. THIS TASK WAS EXPLAINED AND DEMONSTRATED TO THE DEFENDANT. DURING THIS TASK, THE DEFENDANT RAISED HER LEFT LEG APPROXIMATELY SIX INCHES OFF THE GROUND, AND QUICKLY COUNTED TO THE COUNT OF FOUR AND BEGAN TO LOOSE BALANCE AND REPLACED HER FOOT ONTO THE GROUND. I ONCE AGAIN EXPLAINED AND DEMONSTRATED THE TASK TO THE DEFENDANT AND ASKED IF SHE UNDERSTOOD, TO WHICH SHE REPLIED SHE DID. THE TASK WAS BEGUN AGAIN AND THE DEFENDANT ONCE AGAIN PICKED UP HER LEFT FOOT APPROXIMATELY SI8X INCHES ABOVE THE GROUND, COUNTED EXTREMELY FAST TO THE COUNT OF EIGHT AND ONCE AGAIN PUT HER FOOT ONTO THE GROUND. I THEN ASKED THE DEFENDANT IF SHE WANTED TO CHANGE LEGS, TO WHICH SHE REPLIED SHE DID NOT AND THEN LIFTED HER RIGHT LEG OFF THE GROUND APPROXIMATELY SIX INCHES, QUICKLY COUNTED TO THE COUNT OF SIX AND ONCE AGAIN PLACED HER FOOT ONTO THE GROUND. TASK FOUR, FINGER TO NOSE TASK. THIS TASK WAS EXPLAINED AND DEMONSTRATED TO THE DEFENDANT. PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE TASK IT WAS EMPHASIZED TO THE DEFENDANT THAT ONCE SHE TOUCHED THE TIP OF HER FINGER TO THE TIP OF HER NOSE, SHE WAS REQUIRED TO RETURN HER ARM TO HER SIDE. THIS TASK WAS THEN BEGUN. THE DEFENDANT THEN ATTEMPTED TO TOUCH HER LEFT FINGER TO HER NOSE, HOWEVER, SHE MISSED AND FAILED TO RETURN HER ARM TO HE SIDE AS INSTRUCTED. IT WAS ONCE AGAIN EMPHASIZED TO THE DEFENDANT SHE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RETURN HER ARM TO HER SIDE AND SHE WOULD NOT BE REMINDED DURING THE TASK. THE TASK WAS THEN CONTINUED AND THE DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO TOUCH HER RIGHT FINGER TO THE TIP OF HER NOSE AND ONCE AGAIN MISSING HER NOSE AND THEN BEGAN COUNTING INSTEAD OF RETURNING HER ARM TO HER SIDE AS INSTRUCTED. AT THAT TIME, THE DEFENDANT WAS PLACED UNDER ARREST FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE. I MADE CONTACT WITH THE ON DUTY CLERK OF THE CIRCLE-K WHO STATED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN INSIDE THE STORE AND HAD APPEARED TO BE "VERY INTOXICATED". A STATEMENT WAS OBTAINED FROM BOTH THE COMPLAINANT AND THE CLERK AND WERE SUBMITTED TO THE RECORD'S DIVISION FOR INCLUSION IN THIS CASE. PRIOR TO LEAVING THE SCENE, THE DEFENDANT'S VEHICLE WINDOWS WERE ROLLED UP AND THE VEHICLE WAS SECURED. THE VEHICLE WAS LEFT ON SCENE WITH THE CONSENT OF THE BUSINESS AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEFENDANT. THE DEFENDANT WAS THEN TRANSPORTED TO THE CITRUS COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY WHERE SHE WAS TURNED OVER TO OFFICER WING. A SHORT TIME LATER I WAS NOTIFIED BY OFFICER WING THAT HE HAD READ THE DEFENDANT HER IMPLIED CONSENT AND SHE HAD AGREED TO SUBMIT A URINE SPECIMEN. AT THAT TIME I ACCOMPANIED THE DEFENDANT TO THE BOOKING DESK WHERE HER CUSTODY WAS TURNED OVER TO OFFICER FRADY WHO ACCOMPANIED THE DEFENDANT INTO THE RESTROOM TO SUPERVISE THE DEFENDANT'S URINE SAMPLE. THE DEFENDANT AND OFFICER FRADY THEN EXITED THE RESTROOM, AT WHICH TIME OFFICER FRADY TURNED OVER THE URINE SAMPLE TO ME. THE URINE SAMPLE WAS THEN SECURED AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SUBMITTED TO THE EVIDENCE DIVISION AS EVIDENCE. I THEN EXPLAINED TO THE DEFENDANT THAT SHE HAD BEEN ARRESTED FOR DUI AND EXPLAINED TO HER THAT SHE WOULD HAVE A BOND OF $500.00. DURING THIS TIME THE DEFENDANT STATED "I WILL NEVER DRIVE AFTER TAKING PILLS AGAIN." SHE THEN STATED SHE HAD PREVIOUSLY LIED TO ME AND THAT SHE HAD AWOKEN AT APPROXIMATELY 1530 HOURS, ON THIS DATE AND HAD ACTUALLY TAKEN ANOTHER VICODEN AT THAT TIME, WHICH WAS JUST PRIOR TO HER LEAVING HER RESIDENCE. DEFENDANT WAS ISSUED UNIFORM TRAFFIC CITATION 6688-FGW WITH MANDATORY COURT DATE OF 102008 AT 0830 HOURS. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT A CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK REVEALED THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY ARRESTED FOR DUI ON 09/02/1995, WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF THE STATUTORY TEN YEAR WINDOW. *NOT-EXEMPT* |
