Putnam County Driver has License Suspension Invalidated
A Putnam County Sheriff Deputy was traveling northbound on South Highway 17 in the area of San Mateo when he observed a vehicle traveling at an estimated 60 mph in a 45-mph zone. The deputy activated his radar and received a reading of 63 mph in the 45-mph zone. The deputy conducted a traffic stop on the vehicle and spoke with the driver. The deputy stated he observed bloodshot and glassy eyes, that his verbal responses were slightly delayed. Another deputy arrived at the location and asked the driver if he would perform field sobriety exercise. Ultimately, the driver agreed to perform the exercise. The first test the deputy performed was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test and stated he observed a lack of smooth pursuit, distinct and sustained nystagmus prior to the onset of 45 degrees and at maximum deviation. The deputy also noted that he observed six (6) out of eight (8) clues on the walk and turn test, but only observed one (1) out of the four (4) clues on the one-leg stand test. The finger to nose test was not conducted in this case. The driver was placed under arrest for driving under the influence and transported to the Putnam County Jail to provide a breath sample. Upon arrival at the jail, a Florida Highway Trooper requested the driver provide a sample of his breath, which the driver agreed too and blew .142 and .145. The driver received a DUI citation and his license was suspended for an unlawful breath alcohol sample.
The driver hired Meldon Law. The attorneys at Meldon Law filed an application for a Formal Review Hearing through the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle (DHSMV) to challenge the basis of the driver’s license suspension. During the hearing, the attorney from Meldon Law made a motion to invalidate the driver’s license suspension based on the arresting officer’s failure to appear. The hearing officer later issued an order setting aside the license suspension.
DISCLAIMER: The results are specific to the facts and legal circumstances of each of the clients’ cases and should not be used to form an expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case. (Date of Suspension: March 19, 2019).
