 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Grady3/22/2002
As amended April 10, 2002
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Charles E. Williams, Judge.
The State appeals the trial court's order granting Jessica Grady's consolidated motion to suppress and motion to dismiss. The State argues that the trial court erred by granting Grady's motions in reliance upon the husband-wife privilege. We agree and reverse.
On May 26, 2000, Grady was involved in an automobile accident. The Florida Highway Patrol investigated and prepared a crash report. Grady presented a Florida driver's license that identified her as Tracey Joann Phillips to the investigating trooper.
On June 5, 2000, Grady's husband went to a Florida Highway Patrol station and voluntarily told a trooper that his wife had obtained a Florida driver's license in the name of Tracey Joann Phillips and that she used that license when she was involved in the crash on May 26, 2000. He also told the trooper that Grady's driver's license was suspended for driving under the influence .
On August 15, 2000, Grady was charged with using a false statement in obtaining a driver's license, unauthorized possession of a driver's license, giving false information in a crash report, giving a false name after being arrested or lawfully detained, and driving while her license was suspended (with two or more prior convictions of that offense).
Grady filed a consolidated motion to suppress tangible objects to be used at trial and statements or admissions and motion to dismiss. She alleged that because her husband learned of the information that he provided to the Highway Patrol through marital communications, the information was subject to the husband-wife privilege and was confidential. Grady asserted that but for her husband's disclosure of privileged information, the Florida Highway Patrol would not have known of the alleged criminal activity and she would not have been arrested or charged. She claimed that her husband's statements and the tangible objects to be used at her trial must be suppressed and that the criminal information must be dismissed.
In its order granting Grady's motions, the trial court noted several points: (1) the critical information used by law enforcement came from information provided by Grady's husband; (2) it was unrefuted that the information was not available to law enforcement from an independent investigation or an independent source; (3) the nature of the information suggested that Grady provided the information to her husband with a reasonable expectation of privacy and that she would not have consented to disclosure to anyone other than her husband; and (4) there is a strong public policy favoring the confidentiality of communications between a husband and wife.
The primary issues before this court are whether the husband's statements to the trooper violated the husband-wife privilege, and if so, whether the use of those statements to investigate, arrest, and charge Grady was improper.
The privilege is contained in section 90.504, Florida Statutes (2000), which provides the following:
(1) A spouse has a privilege during and after the marital relationship to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, communications which were intended to be made in confidence between the spouses while they were husband and wife.
(2) The privilege may be claimed by either spouse or by the guardian or conservator of a spouse. The authority of a spouse, or guardian or conservator of a spouse, to claim the privilege is presumed in the absence of contrary evidence.
(3) There is no privilege under this section:
(a) In a proce
Page 1 2 3 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|