The appellate court produced the following factual findings and legal conclusions in reversing the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress.
Factual Scenario: An officer responded to a domestic disturbance 911 telephone call, saw the defendant driving away in an automobile which matched the description of the vehicle in the 911 telephone call. The officer initiated a targeted targeted traffic investigation and ordered defendant back to the scene of the domestic incident. At the scene, the officer spoke with the girlfriend of defendant, whom had made the 911 telephone call, and came to the conclusion that no laws had been broken by defendant or anybody else. At the scene of the domestic disturbance, the law enforcement officer realized that defendant had parked his motor vehicle “a little crooked,” that he smelled of alcohol and that he spoke with a slur. The law enforcement officer arrested the defendant for DUI. Defendant was on probation at the time of the arrest and that explains why defendant’s probation was revoked. The defendant filed a motion to suppress in the circuit court. The circuit court denied the motion. The defendant appealed to the district court arguing that the Circuit Court committed reversible error because the officer did not have a legally justifiable suspicion to stop [him] arising from a report of a domestic disturbance dispatch.
The District Court of Appeal agreed with defendant’s position and reversed the circuit court’s denial of defendant’s motion. The district court also reversed the revocation of probation, noting that a domestic disturbance dispatch doesn’t necessarily pertain to any crime, and nothing at all in this specific dispatch informed the law enforcement officer that a crime had occurred at the location of the disturbance, nor did the law enforcement officer observe something that which suggested that a crime had occurred.