You take take the key out of the ignition. Is it in park? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Can I hold on to the car keys? >> Um, no. >> No, >> I don't think so. I don't. It's postal. >> Okay. Do you mind stepping out of the vehicle cuz we are going to be doing field sobriety exercises to you because I do believe you are under the influence. On December 4th, 2025, Melbourne Police Department officers initiated a traffic stop on a USPS mail carrier on US Route 1 after receiving multiple citizen complaints of wrongway driving. Officers personally observed the vehicle traveling in the opposing lane before activating lights, establishing the reasonable articulable suspicion required under Terry v. Ohio 1968. >> Travels drivers having trouble maintaining lane. Turn the lights on. We got to initiate a traffic stop for the wrong way of traffic. >> We're fed in a traffic stop. He just went to the opposite lane of traffic. We're going to conduct it right here at Command University. >> Come on, let's go. Hey, why don't why don't you turn it off for me? >> Can you turn the vehicle off for me? >> Come on. Switch on this side. >> Take over. Tell me what you see. >> How we doing, Austin Police Department? Reason we're stopping you today is you're having trouble maintaining your lane. Are you okay? You seem like you're going through something. No, I'm all right. >> Okay. Have you been drinking today? >> No. Have you been throwing anything out the window? Any cups? Anything like that? Cuz we had someone behind you saying you were throwing cups out the window. >> Oh, yeah. The vehicle stop. >> Okay. So, you haven't been drinking at all today? No. Are you currently on like on shift or are you heading >> Oh, yeah. I'm heading to work. >> Okay. All right. Do you have any disabilities? Anything like that? >> Um PTSC. >> PTSC. That's it. >> Okay. Do you have your ID on you? >> Um, no. I was trying to charge it. >> You're trying to charge it and you couldn't open it up. Anything? >> No. >> Oh, okay. >> What's your um >> What's your uh like area where you deliver? >> Um Melbourne. Uh 640 East New Haven. >> 640 East New Haven. All right. So, you're all around this area? >> Yes. >> Okay. Is there any reason you're driving all over the road? >> No. >> Okay. Cuz we got multiple calls saying that you were driving in the opposite lane of travel. We got behind you and you were in the opposite lane of travel. So, you're just driving in the opposite lane of travel because you're not paying attention. >> I wasn't paying attention cuz I was trying to get my phone cuz the supervisor was calling me. I was >> Okay. Do you have Do you have anything illegal in the vehicle? any alcohol, drugs, anything like that? >> Okay. >> Uh, do you mind? >> Yeah. Do you mind taking that key out, putting this in park? >> You take take the key out of the ignition. Is it in park? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Can I hold on to the car keys? >> Um, no. No, >> I don't think so. I don't. It's postal. >> Okay. >> Do you mind stepping out of the vehicle cuz we are going to be doing field sobriety exercises to you because I do believe you are under the influence. >> Okay. >> Don't reach for anything. Go ahead. Step out. >> All right. We're going to walk over here. >> Yeah. Right over here to where this black car is. >> All right. >> So, have you been using you've been drinking? Anything like that? Have you ever had issues with your current job uh with any of those? >> No, never. >> No. No complaints made about your driving, anything like that. Is this Do you have anything illegal on you? >> No. >> When we did the traffic stop, I was watching the entire time. >> What did you shove in your pocket? >> Was it a weapon or something? Oh, I don't I just have my keys. >> What's that right there? >> Do you mind if I search you? >> Yeah, go ahead. >> We'll have to pack down. >> Yeah, weapons. Okay. Just cuz >> Yeah. No, go ahead. I don't have >> You don't have any box cutters? Cuz I know you're a UPS driver. >> Anything like that? >> No. Am I using my car? >> Just pat you down a little bit. You can put your arm back. You're good. This is being videotaped for courtroom presentation. The event it does go to court. I am now requesting that you perform several physical and verbal exercises to determine your ability to perform the exercises and follow simple instructions. Do not begin any of the exercises until you until I tell you to do so. Do you understand? >> Yes. >> So, I'm going to have you step over to this line over here. I'm going to go back here towards the back of it. All right. Put your left foot on the line with your right foot in front of it touching the toe. Keep your arms at your side and stay in this position until I tell you to get arms down at your side. >> While taking your steps, watch your feet. Keep your hands at your side. >> Count in. >> Count each step out loud and do not stop walking until you have completed the exercise. >> So, it's your left foot on the right, right heel in front. One, two, three, and so on so forth until you get a nine. You're going to take a series of small steps, leaving your left foot on the line. And then you're going to take nine or so steps back. One, two, three, so on, so forth until you get to the nine. And then turn. >> That was nine, right? >> You were counting out loud. >> I I did. >> Okay. >> Nine. So turn. >> That would be the next step after nine. Do you not remember what I said to you? >> Okay. >> All right. I'm going to have you go stand back in the shade. >> Under Pennsylvania v. Mims decided by the Supreme Court in 1977, officers conducting a lawful traffic stop have the authority to order the driver from the vehicle without any additional justification. The driver was asked to remove the key from the ignition and confirm the vehicle was in park. This is standard officer safety protocol. A running vehicle can be used as a weapon or escape mechanism. When asked to hand over the keys, she refused. That refusal was legally within her rights. A driver is not required to surrender keys absent a lawful seizure of the vehicle itself. Before administering field sobriety exercises, FTO Luke conducted a pre-exit interview. He asked about physical disabilities. The driver disclosed PTSD, a relevant disclosure, because certain FSE indicators may have alternative explanations in PTSD patients. She initially denied consuming alcohol. This denial is legally significant. It establishes a baseline for impeachment when compared to her later admissions. When asked about erratic driving, she admitted she was reaching for her phone because her supervisor was calling. Distracted driving and impaired driving are distinct offenses, but the admission corroborates the observed lane violations. The officer then noticed an object in the driver's pocket and requested consent to conduct a pat down search. She agreed, "Yeah, go ahead." Under established fourth amendment consent doctrine, a freely given consent to search is valid without a warrant or probable cause. FTO Luke administered the walk and turn, one of three Nitsa standardized field sobriety exercises. Venitza has identified eight validated clues for this test, including failure to count steps allowed, stepping off the line, and an improper turn. The subject lost her count during the return sequence and failed to complete the exercise as instructed. The walk and turn is a divided attention task. It tests the brain's ability to process multiple instructions simultaneously, a function impaired by alcohol consumption. >> All right. Based on my observations, I believe he's to be impaired. Um, now is your time to be really truthful with me? Have you had anything to drink today? >> No. >> Okay. How recently did you have something to drink? >> About 3 hours ago, I didn't see a classmate. >> Okay. So, you had something 3 hours ago? Well, we're in those cups that you were throwing out the window. >> I didn't throw any cups out the window. >> So, a vehicle was behind you the entire time. They watched you throw stuff out the window. So, >> I didn't throw anything out the window. >> Did you Did something I know your door was open. Did it fall out the window? You had a red solo cup, right? >> Red solo? >> No, I do not. >> Okay. >> I do not. >> What are we going to find in the truck? >> Nothing. >> Male? >> Just mail? >> Okay. >> And how much did you have to drink? >> Just one. >> One. >> One vodka. >> One vodka. How tall? One vodka to me? >> No, it's like two maybe two shots. >> Two shots. >> What time ago was that? What time are you you tracking all this? >> Probably about 45 minutes ago. 45 minutes ago right now. Where'd you have it at? >> I remember you. >> Were you like with who? Like your friends or >> um uh personal? >> Uh >> no, it's okay. >> Just like personal like >> like how did you get it? How did you get it >> from the like client? >> Were you delivering mail over there? You were delivering mail out of house? >> Yeah, it was like the 15th birthday party. >> Okay. How long did you stay over there? >> Um about maybe 10 15 >> 10 15 minutes >> about Yeah. I took my 10-minute break then. >> Okay. And then how many drinks did you have again? I'm sorry. You said you said five. >> No, I didn't say one. >> You said how many? >> Two. >> And you're like >> two shots vodka. >> And you're like this off two shots of vodka? >> I don't ever drink. >> You don't ever drink? Did you say you drunk last night? >> No. >> So the first time you were drinking was today? >> Yeah. I haven't drank in like 6 months. >> Just watch it. One more exercise. Watch this front of this car. >> Okay. >> Have you ever been arrested before? >> No. >> No. Okay. >> After the exercises, the officer informed the driver of his assessment and invited her to be truthful. This is a recognized low pressure elicitation approach. It does not constitute coercion and any admission made here is fully admissible. She then admitted to drinking first, claiming 3 hours prior, then revising to 45 minutes before the stop. She initially said one drink, then revised to two shots of vodka. These evolving admissions constitute prior inconsistent statements admissible for impeachment at trial under Florida evidentiary standards. They also demonstrate consciousness of guilt. She disclosed the alcohol was consumed at a customer's birthday party during a 10-minute delivery break while on duty in a federal mail vehicle on a public roadway. A civilian witness who had followed the truck provided an independent account describing wrongway travel on US1. an obscene gesture directed at other drivers driving over curbs and near collision with a van at approximately 50 miles per hour. This constitutes third-party corroboration of the impairment indicators. The car. >> You're okay. Talk to her. Can you call us? >> Yeah. I get well we can't drive post off people so I'll make sure I'll make sure to call hey she's willing to submit she want to >> so are you willing to submit to a breath test? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> She was driving in the wrong direction on US1. So cars were honking at her. She managed to get back over into the turn lane turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turninging onto WH Jackson. She proceeds to decide to take that turn at very at that very moment in front of me and about four other cars. I honked the horn. She flipped me off like this hanging out the side of the truck. >> That's cool. >> So I said, "Okay." I said, "I think she's drunk." I said, "I think I need to go see what her truck number is." I started filming her and she was all over the road. I'm talking couldn't stay in one lane all over the road. And then I mean driving over curbs about she almost hit the back end of a van full speed probably going about 50 mph down that road. >> Now the female that they're talking to right now is that the female that flipped you off? >> That is her. Yes. >> Okay. So So it's safe to say that this female is the same female from the origination point of our call. >> Absolutely. >> She said that they were southbound on US1 and she was driving northbound in the southbound left lane. That makes it she started to do that. >> Um, >> I I I I'll I'll do that. Good. >> The ignition key. I'll figure it out. >> Oh, what a day. >> Yeah, man. Did some things they weren't supposed to be doing. Under Florida statute section 316.193, the state must prove the driver operated a vehicle while impaired to the extent that normal faculties were affected, the ability to see, hear, walk, talk, judge distances, and make decisions while driving. The evidentiary record supports this standard citizen complaints, officer observation, FSE clues, witness corroboration, and the driver's own self-inccriminating admissions. The driver agreed to submit to a breath test. Under Florida's implied consent law, a lawfully arrested DUI suspect who refuses faces automatic license suspension and additional penalties. Her agreement facilitates a stronger evidentiary record for the state. FTO Luke also contacted the USPS supervisor directly from the driver's phone to notify them of the arrest. The mail aboard the vehicle constitutes federal property under 18USC. Section 1701 proactive employer notification was both professional and legally prudent to protect chain of custody. I got your phone. Okay. Is your supervisor? Do you have her number? >> Uh, yeah. >> You got it. And then we'll let it we'll if need to make call. >> Yeah. >> It's a little step that cuz a little strong. >> I was like there's no there's no >> Are they at work right now? Can I talk to Shane? Okay. >> Shane. Okay. >> Um, >> hello. >> Hey, this is uh FTO Luke on the other side. >> This is FTO Luke with Melbourne Police Department. What was your name again? >> Uh, Kate. >> I'm out here with Kate at University in Babcock. She's going to jail today. Or correction, University in Lipkcom. Are you working right now? >> Are you a postal service supervisor? Yeah, she's getting arrested today. She is drunk. I guess another guy in a postal truck just showed up. >> Yeah. No. Yeah, she was in the mail truck almost hit vehicles. She was being followed. Yeah. So, we're going to be taking her to jail. Hey, I'm 1012 with the supervisor on duty now. >> Okay. >> 82. I'm laying in line with the supervisor on duty. You can 22 the request. Sorry, sir. So, I'm at University of Lipkcom with Caitlyn in the truck. Uh the mail is still in the truck. We got a call from a concern citizen that observed the vehicle throw a solo cup out the car. We made contact with Caitlyn. Uh we seen her mail truck. She was driving on the opposite side of the roadway. >> All right. It's going to be another officer here. All right. Where's the truck at? This the truck? Yeah, this is it. Cigarettes. Dang. You gotten it back yet? This this male been through some things. My je Oh no. Hey y >> lift this down tomorrow. >> Look at this goober. >> He's just trying to work. >> What do you say? >> He might be saying the same thing about you. Look at this goober in the back of it. >> Yeah. >> Look. >> Well, at least he has his job. >> Well, you technically you still have your >> I still have mine. >> Did y'all clock in and clock out? You didn't clock out. >> I didn't clock out. >> Collecting overtime. >> You got that overtime. >> FTO Luke and the responding officers receive a B+. The prefability inquiry was made. The formal advisement was given on camera. Consent was obtained before the pat down. Employer notification was handled proactively. The grade does not reach an A because the complete Nitsa three test battery walk and turn, one leg stand, and horizontal gaze nestagmas was not fully documented on camera. A complete battery strengthens the evidentiary record and has established best practice in DUI investigations. The subject receives a C. To her credit, she complied with all commands, did not physically resist, disclosed her PTSD, and agreed to the breath test. These decisions prevented the encounter from escalating further. Key legal takeaway from this encounter. It is the cumulative weight of corroborating evidence, citizen complaints, officer observation, FSE clues, witness corroboration, and self-inccriminating admissions that builds a legally defensible DUI case. Let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below. Thank you for watching and don't forget to check out our second channel, Street Body Cam, for even more police interaction and courtroom content.