NEW PORT RICHEY - Laura Roberts had taken three prescription pills and drunk a number of beers before riding her bike in the dark along U.S. 19 on the night of Feb. 27, 2000, prosecutors contend. They say that chemical combination caused her to unsteadily ride into the southbound lanes of U.S. 19 in Hudson, near Puffin Lane, into the path of William Anderson and his Chevrolet Monte Carlo.
Anderson swerved sharply to avoid her, crossed the median and slammed into a northbound Nissan truck. Anderson's wife and mother were killed in the crash.
The State Attorney's Office charged Roberts, then 41, with driving under the influence with manslaughter. She had a blood alcohol level of .07, just under the legal limit of .08.
The case is set for trial Monday, attracting the attention of Court TV. Prosecutors had planned to bring Roberts to trial in spring 2002 but she skipped bail.
She was brought back to Florida after being arrested in Nassau County, New York - on a drunken driving charge.
Her case is notable not only for the odd circumstances, but because of some odd twists of DUI law.
Roberts' attorney, Fredrick Susaneck of West Palm Beach, says the Florida Highway Patrol troopers who arrived at the accident scene illegally obtained blood and urine samples from his client. Under the state's implied consent law, drivers, by getting behind the wheel, give their consent to submit to breath, blood or urine tests if they are suspected of driving under the influence.
Any driver who refuses to submit to a sobriety test can have their license suspended for 12 months, or 18 months if they have refused the test before.
The police can mandatorily test any driver involved in a collision that results in severe injury or death.
The catch in Robert's case, according to Susaneck?
Although a bicycle is defined as a vehicle under Florida law, the implied consent law applies to "motor vehicles." In a motion to suppress all evidence before Circuit Judge Michael Andrews, Susaneck argued that the troopers could not use implied consent to get the blood and urine samples from Roberts.
"As Florida law excludes bicycles from the definition of motor vehicles, the arrest of the defendant was illegal, any evidence gathered was unlawfully obtained and is fruit of the poisonous tree," he wrote in his motion.
Andrews denied the motion. During an October hearing, Andrews questioned whether the Legislature had really intended to exclude bicycles from the implied consent law.
Assistant State Attorney Debra Tuomey argued successfully that even if the implied consent law doesn't apply because Roberts was riding a bicycle, other laws allowed the troopers to take the blood and urine samples.
The U.S. Supreme Court found that defendants could have their blood drawn without their consent. And Roberts had caused a fatal accident, meeting a second standard.
But Susaneck said Andrews's ruling has already given him grounds to appeal the case, should Roberts be found guilty.
This case, more than any other biking while intoxicated, has the potential to clarify the law, defense attorneys say.
"It does seem like it's ripe for attack. A lot of times those charges get reduced," said Clearwater attorney Denis de Vlaming, former president of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "I don't know of anyone who has challenged implied consent on a bike."
People being charged for biking while intoxicated is not uncommon, he added, but in 31 years of criminal defense work, he has never heard of a case similar to Roberts'.
The discrepancy in the implied consent law might be oversight on the part of the Legislature. It might not have envisioned a drunken bicyclist with the potential to kill a driver, said St. Petersburg attorney Frank Russo, who specializes in DUI and criminal cases.
"Perhaps the bicycle can't do much damage but the operation of it could jeopardize the safety of other motorists," he added.
Still, you would not bring a drunken pedestrian up on DUI - manslaughter charges if that person stumbled into traffic and caused a fatal accident, de Vlaming said.
"The only difference is the person was on a bike," he added.
J. Larry Hart, a criminal defense attorney from New Port Richey, said that according to the definition of motor vehicle used in the state statutes, the implied consent law specifically excludes bicycles.
But law enforcement officers can use other justifications for obtaining the blood and urine samples after a fatal crash.
As society's attitudes toward drunk driving have become more strict, the implied consent law has become increasingly complex. The law has seen 15 changes in 19 years, Hart said. Some are merely cosmetic alterations, but the law remains "extremely complicated."
Roberts' case, he added, "certainly raises some real questions."-Richard Raeke covers courts in west Pasco County.
