Major Florida Court Reinstates DUI Charges, Clarifies Reasonable Suspicion Under Totality of the Circumstances

October 23, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Drunk Driving/DUI Social Share

A major new Florida court ruling reinstated a defendant’s DUI charges, finding that reasonable suspicion for DUI must be evaluated based on the “totality of the circumstances.”

In Florida, police officers must develop reasonable suspicion that a driver is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime to detain them by stopping their vehicle. This may include suspicion that someone is driving under the influence (DUI), a violation of Fla. Stat. 316.193.

For more on Florida’s DUI laws, including potential penalties and defenses if someone is charged, click here.

Reasonable suspicion is a relatively low threshold, though this must be based on more than a “mere hunch.” If an officer suspects that “criminal activity may be afoot” given the totality of the circumstances, they may initiate an investigatory detention, including for DUI. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) 

Critically, there must be “specific, articulable facts” that support law enforcement’s development of reasonable suspicion. Without these giving rise to reasonable suspicion, a court may find this did not exist at the time the investigation was initiated. This can have major implications for a criminal case.

If police in Florida (and throughout the U.S.) improperly perform a DUI investigation that leads to a DUI arrest despite a lack of reasonable suspicion, this can lead to pretrial dismissal of the charges against a defendant. This is because the arrest and any subsequent recovery of evidence are “fruit of the poisonous tree” – a violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.

If someone is investigated for DUI, a critical question is whether under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer would suspect impairment at the moment the investigation began. This may include asking a driver to perform field sobriety tests, or requesting to breath test them.

Note: It is now a crime in Florida to refuse a breath test if suspected of DUI under Trenton’s Law. This includes for first offenses. For more on Trenton’s Law, click here.

Whether reasonable suspicion existed at the time an officer initiated a DUI investigation is often a critical question when courts assess suppression or dismissal motions in DUI cases. But how much deference must judges give officers in deciding if “reasonable suspicion” exists?

A major new Florida case addresses this exact question – and may play a key role in how state judges assess reasonable suspicion in DUI cases going forward. Let’s break it down.

Major New Case: State v. Tatum, Fla. 6th DCA (October 17, 2025)

In State v. Tatum, the defendant (Tatum) was charged with driving under the influence. He allegedly drove the wrong way (southbound in a northbound lane), then crossed over a grassy median, leading an officer to pull him over. Tatum complied when the officer put on his lights, and pulled into a gas station.

Upon walking up to Tatum’s window, the officer noticed a large wet area on Tatum’s pants and the odor of alcohol. Tatum informed the officer he had been drinking at a bar and got confused exiting the parking lot, which is why he appeared to be driving the “wrong way” before crossing the median.

While speaking with the officer, Tatum misnamed the area he was in – believing the officer “worked for Winter Park,” which was in another jurisdiction. Based on his observations, the officer called for a second opinion, suspecting Tatum was driving under the influence.

When another deputy arrived, he allegedly observed that Tatum’s speech was slurred, his eyes were glossy, and also smelled alcohol. Tatum was then ordered out of the vehicle and subject to field sobriety tests, which he failed. He was arrested and blew 0.16 when tested – approximately twice the legal limit.

Before trial, Tatum filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the DUI investigation. He argued that when the probe began, they did not have reasonable suspicion that he was driving under the influence. Tatum asserted that, as a result, the subsequent field sobriety test results and Breathalyzer readings were “fruit of the poisonous tree” – inadmissible at trial.

The trial judge granted Tatum’s motion, gutting the State’s case. The judge ruled that the stop and suspicion were both unreasonable. The judge speculated that Tatum’s conduct may have been a function of his poor eyesight or elderly age (he was 77), rather than intoxication. 

The State appealed the suppression ruling. After hearing oral argument, Florida’s 6th District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s holding, finding that the officers did indeed develop reasonable suspicion that Tatum was driving under the influence before conducting their DUI investigation. As a result, his DUI test results could be admitted at trial.

The 6th DCA noted that both officers made observations that reasonably indicated Tatum was driving under the influence at the time they ordered him out of the vehicle. The 6th DCA also chastised the trial court, writing:

“In the relative comfort and quiet of a courtroom, it may be possible for a judge to imagine non-criminal explanations for the individual circumstances that made a law enforcement officer suspicious. However, under the law we are compelled to follow, the appropriate question is whether the officer’s suspicion was reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances and the officer’s experience and specialized training.”

The 6th DCA agreed with the State’s contention that there were many reasonable indicators of impairment, including:

• Tatum’s wrong-way driving
• Median crossing
• Odor of alcohol
• Wet spot on Tatum’s pants
• Confusion as to location
• His admission to drinking just before the stop

The 6th DCA discussed the need to avoid unnecessarily “second-guessing” law enforcement on the issue of reasonable suspicion, writing:

“If the officer’s suspicion was reasonable, neither the personal liberty that article I, section 12 exists to preserve nor the exclusionary rule that exists to deter police misconduct justifies judicial second-guessing of the type the record reveals here.”

The 6th DCA also criticized the trial court for engaging in a “divide-and-conquer” strategy in examining whether officers developed reasonable suspicion. The 6th DCA argued the trial court had erred because, rather than assessing the “totality of the circumstances,” it looked at every fact individually (e.g. wet pants, glossy eyes) and cited a possibly lawful explanation:

“The court engaged in a divide-and-conquer analysis in which Sergeant Shapiro’s observations were parsed out, examined in isolation, and divorced from context. Instead, it should have analyzed the reasonableness of Sergeant Shapiro’s suspicion in view of the totality of the circumstances. It was not necessary for Sergeant Shapiro to rule out every possible non-criminal explanation of the facts before he could reasonably suspect Mr. Tatum was impaired.”

Essentially, the 6th DCA cautioned trial judges – urging them to avoid emphasizing speculative innocent explanations in their reasonable suspicion analyses. The 6th DCA urged trial courts to find reasonable suspicion whenever an officer of reasonable caution observes specific facts that lead him to suspect DUI may be occurring. 

The Tatum decision is also a reminder that “totality of the circumstances” remains the legal cornerstone for evaluating the legality of stops and detentions. Cumulatively, even facts with potentially innocent explanations can support a DUI investigation – because the police do not have to be totally certain DUI is occurring before a probe begins.

Moreover, Tatum reinforces the fact that “divide-and-conquer” reasoning (as the court called it) will not hold up on appeal. When there are many converging indicators of impairment, courts cannot explain away each of these by citing a possibly legal explanation. In the eyes of the 6th DCA, this would make it nearly impossible for officers to lawfully initiate a DUI investigation. 

In sum, State v. Tatum, Fla. 6th DCA (October 17, 2025) is a major new case in Florida on the issue of DUI, reasonable suspicion, and the exclusionary rule. The 6th District Court of Appeal cautioned trial judges with this ruling, urging them not to hastily suppress evidence in DUI cases by trying to “poke holes” in an officer’s justification for developing reasonable suspicion.

The decision is clear – in some cases, law enforcement officers may fail to make observations sufficient to justify the initiation of a DUI investigation. But when various indicators of unlawful impairment exist, Tatum urges courts to not hastily suppress or exclude evidence on the basis that law enforcement “unreasonably” suspected DUI.

If someone believes evidence is being illegally used against them or a loved one in a case, it is crucial to find experienced and aggressive legal representation as soon as possible. This vital decision could make the difference in whether or not a person is subject to a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share