 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Silva1/9/2002
circuit court made the following findings:
There was no competent, substantial evidence to support the Hearing Officer's finding that Mr. Silva was driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in violation of 316.193, Fla. Stat., on or about August 1, 2000. Statements made by Mr. Silva should not have been admitted without evidence of Miranda warnings. Although there was clearly suspicion that Mr. Silva was the driver, the circumstances did not rise to the level of probable cause.
On certiorari review of agency action, the circuit court must determine 1) whether the agency afforded the parties procedural due process, 2) whether the essential requirements of the law were observed, and 3) whether the agency's action is supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Haines City, 658 So. 2d at 530; Haskins v. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 752 So. 2d 625, 626-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). This court's review of a circuit court's ruling on a petition requires that we determine whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and applied the correct law. See 658 So. 2d at 530; 752 So. 2d at 627. With respect to the second prong of our inquiry, we find that the circuit court erred by applying the incorrect law. Rather than limiting its inquiry to whether there was competent, substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's findings, the circuit court applied the incorrect law by reviewing the evidence de novo. This was error. See Haskins, 752 So. 2d at 627 (holding that circuit court erred in forming its own opinion about the evidence without giving deference to the hearing officer's findings); Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Favino, 667 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (finding the circuit court erred by reweighing evidence and substituting its judgment for that of the hearing officer). As in Haskins and Favino, in the present case, the circuit court exceeded its scope of review by making an independent probable cause determination.
We will avoid the error of substituting our own probable cause determination for that of the circuit court; nevertheless, we observe that the circumstances surrounding the accident, together with the arresting officer's observations, provided ample probable cause for Silva's DUI arrest. As the First District noted in Favino, 667 So. 2d at 308, probable cause exists "where the facts and circumstances, as analyzed from the officer's knowledge . . . and practical experience . . . are sufficient in themselves for a reasonable man to reach the conclusion that an offense has been committed." In this case the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident would lead a reasonable man to believe that Silva was driving the motorcycle found lying on the road shoulder next to him. It has been said that probable cause is a conclusion often drawn from "reasonable inferences." Id. (citing State v. Cott, 547 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)). In order to find that the hearing officer's probable cause determination was unsupported by competent, substantial evidence, the court necessarily ignored all "obvious implications" and reasonable inferences to be drawn from the surrounding circumstances and the arresting officer's observations. Favino, 667 So. 2d at 308.
Accordingly, we grant the Department's petition and quash the circuit court's order reinstating Silva's driving privilege.
FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., Concur.
Page 1 2 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|