 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mosby v. Harrell6/23/2005
g out of its duty to enforce the laws and protect the public safety." Id. at 1100. This case presents a similar question: whether FDLE's investigation of Appellant, through DNA testing, should expose the agency to a negligence suit after Appellant is acquitted.
I respectfully disagree that the case of Ragsdale v. Mount Sinai Medical Center, 770 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), is on point. Ragsdale involved a private laboratory which conducted a drug test on a law enforcement officer. The test was not performed to determine whether a crime had occurred, but merely to determine whether a person's employment should be terminated. In my view, there is a significant difference between a law enforcement agency conducting a test as part of a criminal investigation and a private laboratory conducting a test to assist an employer . Although the test results were used to terminate Appellant's employment, the test was conducted as part of a criminal investigation.
This appears to be a case of first impression which now establishes that law enforcement agencies are liable for inaccurate analysis of DNA and, I submit, any other similar analysis, such as fingerprints, blood types, and other physical evidence. I would recede from Hines and affirm the lower court's ruling on the basis that FDLE does not owe a duty of care to Appellant.
|