v. Rivas-Marmol, 679 So.2d 808, 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), where the Third District determined that an arrest of an individual accused of DUI occurred after he failed a field sobriety test and was handcuffed, placed in the back of a police cruiser, and advised he was going to the police station. In the case before us, Ms. Mathis was detained and, after failing to complete the field sobriety tests, handcuffed and invol untarily transported to CBT. Ms. Mathis was notified that her car would be impounded if alternate arrangements were not made to secure it. Although Deputy McKenzie told Ms. Mathis why she was stopped and testified that he transferred her to CBT to continue the DUI investigation, these statements are insufficient to establish mere detention. See Rivas-Marmol, 679 So.2d at 809 (<HOLDING>). The trial court correctly concluded that Ms.
holding that the odor of alcohol on the defendants breath her admission that she had a few drinks earlier in the evening and a positive result on a breath test do not provide probable cause to arrest her for dui holding that arresting officers testimony at suppression hearing supported finding of probable cause to arrest defendant for dwi despite contradictory testimony of defendant and his passenger and despite minor inconsistencies in officers testimony holding that an unlawful stop may invalidate an ensuing arrest and that without a valid arrest there can be no request to take a breath test which may lead to a lawful suspension holding that suppression of stateadministered breath test is necessary where the accused is denied access to a telephone despite his requests to arrange an independent chemical test holding that an arrest occurred despite an officers testimony that the accused was only detained prior to a breath test