In DUI defense a common question or problem involves the "ignition interlock device". The law on the ignition interlock device states that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles "shall require the placement of a department-approved ignition interlock device for any person convicted of committing an offense of driving under the influence as specified".
In criminal cases a common concern is that the officer requested the driver or other person to exit the vehicle. There is a line of thought that being removed from the vehicle requires a safety concern or other good reason. Some may question what issue(s) exist getting out of the car, others do not like the feeling of being seized, however in the context of criminal cases, exiting from a vehicle often discloses damaging evidence.
A frustrating issue defending those accused of Driving Under the Influence or DUI, has been the lack of a definition of the word "impaired" in the standard jury instructions. Without a breath, blood or urine result or sample the State of Florida must prove that the person is "impaired" in order to convict a person of DUI. This is especially true if the accused is DUI by drugs or prescriptions. However, the Florida Supreme Court in issuing jury instructions has sought fit to leave the word "impaired" undefined.
Criminal cases, especially those involving firearms are significant and tense starting at the roadside encounter. The recent appellate case of Rose v. State from the First District Court of Appeal, in which the person was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, is a scary reminder of how interactions with law enforcement can go horribly wrong, fast. The Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.