When a driver is pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, the stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion. This is a legal standard that allows law enforcement officers to briefly detain someone if they observe specific facts suggesting the person may be engaged in criminal activity.
In the context of a DUI stop, these reasons could include swerving between lanes, failing to signal, driving significantly below the speed limit or braking erratically. Reasonable suspicion doesn’t require proof or even strong evidence. It only requires enough objective observation to justify further investigation.
Once a stop is made, the officer may then look for additional signs of impairment, such as the smell of alcohol, slurred speech or bloodshot eyes. These observations can lead to field sobriety tests or a breathalyzer.
Reasonable suspicion is more lax than probable cause
While reasonable suspicion is enough to initiate a stop, it’s not enough to make an arrest. That’s where probable cause comes in. Probable cause is a higher standard and means the officer has enough facts to believe a crime has likely occurred. For DUI arrests, probable cause might be based on a failed field sobriety test, a breath test over the legal limit or clear signs of intoxication.
A lack of reasonable suspicion could call the entire traffic stop into question. Lack of probable cause could mean that the arrest was unlawful. Distinguishing between these two concepts and learning how they impact a criminal case may be important for the defendant. Determining if the either plays a role in the defense strategy may require the assistance of someone familiar with this type of case.
