 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Langsford3/27/2002
In a prosecution for driving under the influence, the county court suppressed the results of a blood test conducted upon appellee without her consent on the ground it violated section 316.1933, Florida Statutes (2000). The court certified the following question at the request of the state:
In light of Bernie v. State, 524 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1988), which holds that Florida is prohibited from giving greater protections than those contained within the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, has the Third District Court of Appeal, in State v. Slaney, 653 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), misinterpreted the Implied Consent Law Scheme in violation of Article I, Section 12, Florida Constitution (1982), by holding that it gives greater protection from unreasonable searches and seizures than those found by the United States Supreme Court in Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1964)?
We answer the certified question in the negative, agreeing with Slaney.
After an automobile accident in which appellee had a bleeding laceration on her forehead and the occupants of the other vehicle complained of neck and back pain, appellee was taken to the hospital for treatment. While there, the investigating police officer asked appellee to consent to a blood alcohol test. Appellee refused, and the officer ordered a forced blood test because he believed serious injury was involved. Appellee was arrested for driving under the influence .
Appellee moved to suppress the blood test because it was taken in violation of section 316.1933. That section permits an officer to require a suspect to submit to a blood test where the officer has probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle driven by a person under the influence of alcoholic beverages has caused death or serious bodily injury. While the parties stipulated for the purpose of the hearing that the officer had probable cause to believe that appellee was driving under the influence , the court concluded that he did not have probable cause to believe that death or serious bodily injury had resulted. Therefore, failure to comply with the statutory requirements necessitated suppression of the blood test.
The trial court relied on State v. Slaney, 653 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The state argues that Slaney failed to give effect to article I, section 12 of the Florida Constitution, which requires the state constitutional right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures to be construed in conformity with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We disagree and adopt the analysis of the third district:
The law is well settled that it is not an unreasonable search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made enforceable against the states under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), for police to obtain a warrantless involuntary blood sample from a defendant who is under arrest for DUI provided (1) there is probable cause to arrest the defendant for that offense, and (2) the blood is extracted in a reasonable manner by medical personnel pursuant to medically approved procedures. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). It is equally well settled, however, that the states are privileged under their state law to adopt higher, but not lower, standards for police conduct than those required by the Fourth Amendment. Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 62, 87 S.Ct. 788, 791, 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (1967) (state constitutional provision on search and seizure); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 61, 8
Page 1 2 3 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|