Each County, Prosecutor, Judge and case is unique so sentencing may vary from case to case. The advantage of a reckless driving reduction is it does not have the level of mandatory enhanced punishment for a second offense that a DUI carries. It also can save your license if you prevail at the administrative review hearing or are not suspended administratively such as in a DUI based on urine results. A reckless driving will raise your insurance but not as much as a DUI conviction. If a case has substantial issues it may be reduced to a dry reckless. If reduced to dry reckless and adjudication is withheld points will not be assessed on your license and the fines and court cost might be reduced as low as $300-$400 depending on the jurisdiction.

Another benefit of a reckless driving reduction is the impact it will have on insurance. In Florida the FR-44 has been required since February 2008. The FL FR-44 has higher limits in the amount of 100,000/300,000/50,000. A driver must have these new required Liability limits (instead of the previously lower limits of 10/20/10) in place on the offense date of the alcohol related offense to not owe a reinstatement fee but will still need to provide the state with an FR-44. If they did not have the required limits a driver who had their license reinstated prior to February 2, 2008, only paid a $15 reinstatement fee. The reinstatement fee is now $150, $250, or $500 dollars. The increased insurance coverage results in increased insurance cost. With a DUI you will not only have high risk insurance but you will also have to carry a high policy limit. High policy limits and high risk amount to dramatic increases in cost. A reckless driving is not good for insurance cost but it will not require you to obtain FR-44 insurance.

If a reasonable person in the situation would not feel free to leave the situation becomes an investigatory stop. If a reasonable person would not feel obligated to stay the situation is a consensual encounter. Brooks v. State, 745 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). For an investigatory stop the police must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. No basis is required for a consensual encounter. An officer shining a flashlight in a car is not an investigatory stop. Emergency lights, blue lights or take down lights are equivalent to an investigatory stop. Spotlight is not considered to be an investigatory stop. The use of an air horn is considered a stop requiring reasonable suspicion. If the officer’s vehicle is positioned in the path of the accused reasonable suspicion would be required. Asking for identification to perform warrant checks is not a detention but if the officer retains the license after the warrant check the consensual encounter can become a detention if no justification for the detention is established during the warrant check. Asking an individual to exit the vehicle requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

An officer can investigate a vehicle if they believe the driver or occupant is illtired or impairedIf an officer comes across an individual sleeping in a vehicle requesting the individual to get out of the car can create a detention. An individual was believed to be sleeping in a running car with headlights on outside of an open bar at 1:30 in the morning. Condensation had accumulated on the windows from the air conditioner. The officer knocked on the window and was unsuccessful in waking the individual. The officer then asked the accused to exit the vehicle. The court ruled that asking the accused to exit was a detention and at that point observing someone sleeping outside of a bar in a running car was not sufficient reasonable suspicion to detain the accused. Danielewicz v. State, 730 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). If an individual is in this type of situation they should be aware that the officer is performing a well-being check. Once it is determined that the accused is not in jeopardy as long as reasonable suspicion of impairment is not detected the justification for the encounter ends.

If you are impaired by drugs or alcohol be careful not to consent to an encounter. Also remember that implied consent does not apply to field sobriety exercises. Field sobriety exercises are optional and the only consequence of not performing field sobriety exercises is The State can tell the jury you did not perform Field sobriety exercises. Police are trained to pick up on indicators of impairment. If you waive your right to be free of unconstitutional search and seizure the officer will most likely pick up on the indicators of impairment. If the officer picks up on indicators of impairment you will almost definitely be arrested for DUI. If you take a DUI breath test and pass you will almost definitely be asked to submit to a urine test. If you refuse either test you will lose your license administratively for 90 days on the first offense. If you pass the breath test and take the urine test you will be required to remain in jail until The accused is no longer under the influence and The accused's normal faculties are no longer impaired, The accused's blood/breath alcohol level is lower than 0.05; or Eight hours have elapsed from the time the accused was arrested. This applies even if you are not under the influence since it can take over a month for urine resultsto be tested by The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE)Even if The State Attorney's office drops your case your license will be administratively suspended for DUI refusal unless you prevail at an administrative review hearing.

Possessing alcohol on the beach by anyone regardless of age in Volusia County is a municipal ordinance violation punishable by up to 60 days in jail, 6 months of probation and a $500 fine. It is also a violation to possess glass containers on the beach. The restrictions on glass containers, alcoholic beverages along with disruptive behavior and police sweeps are common causes of police encounters that result in a Daytona Beach possession under 21 charge. Attorney Kevin J. Pitts is a former Daytona Beach Assistant State Attorney who focuses his practice on criminal defense and DUI cases.

562.111 Possession of alcoholic beverages by persons under age 21 prohibited.

1. It is unlawful for any person under the age of 21 years, except a person employed under the provisions of s. 562.13 acting in the scope of her or his employment, to have in her or his possession alcoholic beverages, except that nothing contained in this subsection shall preclude the employment of any person 18 years of age or older in the sale, preparation, or service of alcoholic beverages in licensed premises in any establishment licensed by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco or the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 562.45, any person under the age of 21 who is convicted of a violation of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083; however, any person under the age of 21 who has been convicted of a violation of this subsection and who is thereafter convicted of a further violation of this subsection is, upon conviction of the further offense, guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
2. The prohibition in this section against the possession of alcoholic beverages does not apply to the tasting of alcoholic beverages by a student who is at least 18 years of age, who is tasting the alcoholic beverages as part of the student’s required curriculum at a postsecondary educational institution that is institutionally accredited by an agency recognized by the United States Department of Education and that is licensed or exempt from licensure pursuant to the provisions of chapter 1005 or is a public postsecondary education institution; if the student is enrolled in the college and is tasting the alcoholic beverages only for instructional purposes during classes that are part of such a curriculum; if the student is allowed only to taste, but not consume or imbibe, the alcoholic beverages; and if the alcoholic beverages at all times remain in the possession and control of authorized instructional personnel of the college who are 21 years of age or older.
3. In addition to any other penalty imposed for a violation of subsection (1), the court shall direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to withhold issuance of, or suspend or revoke, the violator’s driver’s license or driving privilege, as provided in s. 322.056.