criminal defense attorney Fort Lauderdale

April 9, 2025

DUI Checkpoints in Broward County: Know Your Rights

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

DUI checkpoints are a regular occurrence throughout Broward County, especially during holidays and major events. As a Fort Lauderdale DUI lawyer can explain, these strategically placed roadblocks allow law enforcement to briefly stop and evaluate drivers for signs of impairment. While these checkpoints serve a legitimate public safety purpose, many drivers don’t understand how these differ from regular traffic stops or what rights they maintain when encountering one.

How DUI Checkpoints Differ from Standard Traffic Stops

In a typical Broward County DUI arrest scenario, an officer must have “reasonable suspicion” to pull you over. This might include observing erratic driving, speeding, or equipment violations. Once stopped, the officer can investigate further if they develop probable cause to believe you’re impaired.

DUI checkpoints operate differently. At checkpoints, law enforcement can stop every vehicle (or every nth vehicle according to a predetermined formula) without specific suspicion of wrongdoing. This presents a significant constitutional exception to the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Legal Foundation for DUI Checkpoints

The Florida Supreme Court established the legality of sobriety checkpoints in the 1986 decision in State v. Jones, determining that properly conducted checkpoints do not violate Florida’s Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court similarly upheld their constitutionality in the 1990 ruling in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, finding that the state’s interest in preventing drunk driving outweighed the minimal intrusion on individual rights.

However, for a checkpoint to be legal in Florida, it must adhere to strict guidelines:

The checkpoint must be authorized by supervisory personnel following a written operational plan.
Officers cannot have unfettered discretion in stopping vehicles.
The checkpoint must be clearly identified as a sobriety checkpoint.
Motorists must receive adequate advance notice.
The location must be reasonable.
The detention time must be minimal.
The roadblock must be conducted safely.

Checkpoints that fail to meet these requirements may be deemed unconstitutional, potentially invalidating any resulting arrests. An experienced criminal defense lawyer can analyze the facts of your case to help make that determination.

Your Rights at a Broward County DUI Checkpoint

When approaching a checkpoint in Fort Lauderdale or elsewhere in Broward County, you should be aware of your rights:

You must stop at the checkpoint. Attempting to avoid a checkpoint by making an illegal U-turn or other evasive action can provide officers with reasonable suspicion to stop you separately.
You must provide license and registration. Florida Statute §322.15 requires drivers to present their license, registration, and proof of insurance when requested by law enforcement.
You can remain silent. Beyond providing identifying documents, you have the right to decline answering questions about where you’re coming from, where you’re going, or whether you’ve been drinking. Simply inform the officer politely that you’re exercising your right to remain silent.
You can decline field sobriety tests. These tests are voluntary, and you can refuse them without penalty. However, be aware that refusal may lead officers to develop probable cause for arrest based on other factors like odor of alcohol, slurred speech, or bloodshot eyes.
Chemical tests are different. Under Florida’s “implied consent” law (F.S. §316.1932), refusing a breath, blood, or urine test after arrest can result in an automatic one-year license suspension (18 months for a second refusal). This refusal can also be used against you in court.

The Checkpoint Process in Broward County

Broward County law enforcement agencies, including the Fort Lauderdale Police Department and Broward Sheriff’s Office, typically conduct checkpoints at high-traffic locations during evening hours. Officers may:

Request your license and registration.
Engage you in brief conversation to observe signs of impairment.
Look for visible open containers or drug paraphernalia.
Request field sobriety tests if they suspect impairment.
Conduct breath tests if probable cause is established.

How a Local Fort Lauderdale Attorney Can Help

If you’re arrested at a DUI checkpoint in Broward County, securing representation from a local criminal defense attorney offers significant advantages: Continue reading

January 6, 2025

Can You Refuse a Breathalyzer Test in Florida? Pros, Cons, and Legal Implications

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

If you’ve been pulled over for suspected driving under the influence (DUI) in Florida, one of the most critical moments may come when an officer requests that you take a breathalyzer test. This seemingly simple request carries significant legal weight because of Florida’s implied consent law. Refusing to submit to a breath test has both immediate and long-term consequences, and understanding the pros, cons, and legal implications of such a refusal is crucial.

As an experienced Broward County criminal defense lawyer, I’ll provide an in-depth look into Florida’s implied consent laws, discuss the penalties for refusal, and explain whether there are circumstances in which refusal might work to a defendant’s advantage.

(Note: This following should not be considered legal advice. To know which actions are most advisable in your case, you should always talk to the criminal defense attorney who is representing you.)

What Are Florida’s Implied Consent Laws?

Under Florida Statute §316.1932, by obtaining a driver’s license, you automatically consent to submit to chemical tests of your breath, blood, or urine if law enforcement has probable cause to believe you are driving under the influence. This is known as the state’s implied consent law.

If you refuse to take a breathalyzer test after being lawfully arrested for DUI, you’re effectively violating this implied agreement, which triggers an automatic administrative penalty and other potential legal consequences.

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of implied consent laws in their 1980 ruling in the case of State v. Bender, where it was underscored that driving is a privilege, not a right. Other precedent-setting cases have held that compelling someone to submit to a breathalyzer test when there is probable cause to believe they’re driving impaired does not violate the Fifth Amendment constitutional right to protect against self-incrimination.

Consequences of Refusing a Breathalyzer Test

Administrative Penalties

Refusing a breathalyzer test in Florida results in an automatic suspension of your driver’s license:

First refusal: A one-year suspension.
Second or subsequent refusals: An 18-month suspension and possible misdemeanor charges for repeat refusal.

The suspension is enforced by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FLHSMV), independent of any criminal DUI case.

Use of Refusal as Evidence in Court

One of the most critical legal implications is that your refusal can be used as evidence against you in court. Prosecutors will likely argue that refusal indicates consciousness of guilt—that you declined the test because you knew you were intoxicated. This can be a powerful narrative for a jury, even if there’s no direct evidence of your blood alcohol content (BAC).

Potential for Increased DUI Penalties

If you’re ultimately convicted of DUI after refusing a breath test, you may face harsher penalties. For instance, refusal may disqualify you from certain diversion programs or result in more severe sentencing.

Possible Pros of Refusing a Breathalyzer Test

Despite the serious consequences, some defendants see benefits in refusing a breathalyzer test. Continue reading

September 15, 2023

Arrested for a Fatal Car Accident in Fort Lauderdale? Here’s What You May Be Facing.

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

If you’re a driver who survives a deadly crash when others didn’t, it’s a unique kind of nightmare. Of course you didn’t intend harm. Maybe it wasn’t even wholly your fault. Nonetheless, lives were changed irrevocably – your own included. That is especially true if you’re arrested in connection with a fatal car accident in Fort Lauderdale.

Just because a fatal crash occurs (as they do roughly 3,500 times a year in Florida, according to the FLHSMV), it does not necessarily mean the driver(s) will face criminal charges. You might only face a traffic citation.

Criminal traffic charges are typically only filed when there is evidence of willful/wanton recklessness. Not mere carelessness, but reckless driving in a manner likely to cause great bodily harm or death. That can include street racing, being drunk/under the influence, fleeing a law enforcement officer, greatly excessive speeding (significant enough to be considered reckless), or engaging in acts of road rage (weaving through traffic, aggressively cutting people off, etc.).

The other primary catalyst for criminal charges filed in fatal Florida traffic accidents is a driver leaving the scene of an accident, better known as hit-and-run.

As a Fort Lauderdale criminal defense lawyer can explain, charges might not be filed immediately after the collision. It’s going to take time for investigators to piece together what they think happened. Some arrests don’t happen until months after the fact. It’s a really good idea if you were a driver in a fatal Broward crash to seek immediate legal counsel from a criminal defense lawyer – even if you aren’t sure whether you did anything wrong. This will help ensure your rights are protected and that you don’t speak out of turn in a way that could threaten your freedom or your future.

Criminal vs. Civil Traffic Crash Cases

Fatal crashes sometimes result in two separate judicial proceedings: One civil, one criminal.

In the civil justice proceedings, the question will be whether the defendant driver was negligent, meaning they failed in their duty to use reasonable care in operating the vehicle, resulting in the death of another person. Such cases are filed by the decedent’s surviving loved ones or their estate. If negligence is proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant may be financially responsible to pay money to the survivors/estate.

In the criminal justice proceedings, the question will be whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant driver violated state law, and thus deserves to be punished according to the state’s criminal code.

The proof burden for criminal cases is far higher than for civil cases. That’s the reason a person might not face criminal charges, but could still be found liable in civil court.

Recent Broward Fatal Crash Criminal Cases

Recently, a number of fatal crashes in Broward County have made headlines. Among them:

A 42-year-old arrested for two counts of reckless driving and one count of vehicular homicide in Fort Lauderdale after the crash death of a motorcyclist.
A 20-year-old arrested for two counts of vehicular homicide, multiple counts of reckless driving, and numerous drug charges following a fatal Tamarac rollover crash that killed two women and injured five other people.
A 16-year-old unlicensed teen driver and his father arrested for reckless driving and vehicular homicide for the death of a pregnant ICU nurse and critical injury to her 8-year-old son in Miramar. The teen was allegedly under the influence of marijuana and driving 113-miles-per-hour in a 45 mph zone. The teen’s father wasn’t in the vehicle at the time, but his criminal charges stem from the fact that he provided his unlicensed teen with a vehicle.

Penalties for Fatal Crash Criminal Charges in Florida

October 28, 2018

Florida Supreme Court Rejects Daubert Expert Testimony Standard

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

In a split 4-3 decision, the Florida Supreme Court soundly rejected the Daubert standard of evidence for expert witness testimony – the one used in federal courts and adopted by many state courts, in favor of the less stringent Frye standard, the older method that prior to 2013 had been the standard in the Sunshine State.

What does this mean for Fort Lauderdale criminal defendants? It will be relevant both for them as well as for plaintiffs in civil cases. The Daubert standard establishes a rule of evidence (found in Federal Rules of Evidence 702) that pertains to the admissibility of an expert witness’s testimony, stemming from the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. It holds that a witness can only be qualified as an expert if he or she has the knowledge, skill, experience, training or education that is considered a baseline to form that opinion. Testimony must meet a specific list of criteria, and the judge acts as the gatekeeper. Those whose opinions fail to meet that proof burden can be excluded.

Frye, meanwhile, is less stringent, considered a general acceptance test for scientific evidence requiring that one’s expert opinion, if based on a scientific technique, can only be admitted where that technique is “generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community.” Continue reading

July 22, 2018

Amid Immigration Crackdown, Strong Criminal Defense More Important Than Ever

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

There is an inherent interplay between criminal and immigration law that has recently come under an intense spotlight since the Trump administration has taken a hard line on immigration policies,. This includes aggressive action by immigration authorities to initiate proceedings against those with decades-old criminal convictions for non-violent crimes. In the past, that usually involved recent convictions for felonies – violent crimes in particular – and typically only undocumented immigrants.

However, as the Miami Herald reported recently, even documented immigrants, such as those holding green cards who have green cards and are long-time residents, aren’t immune. In fact, this is now policy per new guidelines passed earlier this month by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have indicated that immigrants who abuse any program that is related to acceptance of public benefits can be brought before an immigration court and subject to removal if evidence of fraud or willful misrepresentation is established. Under this new guidelines, immigration officials actually have expanded authority to issue Notices to Appear, which is what starts the whole deportation process.

Since the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case of Padilla v. Kentucky, criminal defense lawyers have been required to advise non-citizen clients about the possible immigration consequences that may result from acceptance of a guilty plea. Failure to do so amounts to a violation of one’s Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective counsel. A violation on this front can be grounds for post-conviction relief, including possibly a modification of one’s criminal sentence or a new trial. Continue reading

October 9, 2016

Prosecutorial Misconduct by Withholding Evidence Now a Felony in California

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

Prosecutors in California who withhold exculpatory evidence or tamper with evidence in a criminal case will now face felony charges themselves. The recent law, signed by that state’s Governor Jerry Brown, allows a penalty of up to three years’ prison time for prosecutors who withhold evidence that defendants could use to exonerate them. Before this law passed, such actions were criminal, but they were only considered misdemeanor crimes.

Officials say the measure was necessary in light of a growing number of cases wherein people have been wrongfully convicted at least in part because prosecutors abused their power and position. The measure follows a high-profile case in Orange County where a prosecutors in a murder case was found to have repeatedly violated defendant’s rights by not turning over key evidence. Although the court overseeing the matter did not find the prosecutor had engaged in willful misconduct, he was nonetheless removed from the case.

There are allegations from the public defender’s office in that region that corrections officers have for years violated inmates’ rights with an illegal jailhouse informant program that prosecutors tried to hide. This involved using the testimony of fellow inmates in exchange for leniency in their pending cases – while not disclosing this deal at trial. A number of high-profile criminal cases have collapsed as a result. Prosecutors are now saying if the law applies to them, it should apply to defense lawyers too. Continue reading

May 31, 2016

Miami Woman Kills Teen Burglar, Charges Mulled

By The Law Offices of Richard Ansara, P.A.

The state attorney is considering whether to charge a Miami woman with murder after she gunned down a burglar on her property.

Florida has one of the strongest “Castle Doctrine” laws on the books, which allow homeowners to use lethal force against those who unlawfully enter their homes. The law does require that in order to threaten or use deadly force, the resident/ homeowner has to believe such force is necessary to either prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to herself or someone else or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

In this case, the 54-year-old homeowner wasn’t at the time of the burglar’s initial entry, but rather was alerted to the break-in by a home security camera. She reportedly returned home and searched the property room-to-room, until she spotted the teen climbing out a window. She told investigators there was a confrontation and she shot him. Further, police were reportedly on their way. Continue reading