From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Barrett

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Mar 30, 1987
508 So. 2d 361 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Summary

In State v. Barrett, 508 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla. 1987), this court, applying section 316.1932(1)(a)1., held that "the legislature has specifically declared that breath tests must be incident to a lawful arrest, and has made pre-arrest breath tests inadmissible."

Summary of this case from State, Dept. of Hwy. Saf. v. Whitley

Opinion

No. 86-981.

January 22, 1987. Rehearing Denied March 30, 1987.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Seminole County, Kenneth M. Leffler, J.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Ellen D. Phillips, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellant.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Nancye R. Crouch, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellee.


We affirm the order of the trial court suppressing the results of a pre-arrest breath test on the ground that the results of a chemical test of a driver's breath to determine the alcohol content of his blodd are admissible in evidence only where the test is incidental to a lawful arrest. § 316.1932(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1985). The results of a pre-arrest breath test are not admissible into evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding. § 316.1932(1)(b)1, Fla. Stat. (1985). The State suggests that because an officer may compel a driver to submit to a blood test where the officer has probable cause to believe that the driver was operating the motor vehicle while under the influence of alcoholic beverages and has caused death or serious injury, (section 316.1933(1)) which test need not be incident to arrest, that when death or serious injury has occurred the driver can consent to the administration of a less intrusive breath test which should thus be admissible as would be a non-consensual blood test. While this argument is enticing, the legislature has specifically declared that breath tests must be incident to a lawful arrest, and has made pre-arrest breath tests inadmissible. Cf. State v. Williams, 417 So.2d 755 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). There is nothing in this record to suggest that the defendant consented to a breath test in lieu of a blood test.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Barrett

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Mar 30, 1987
508 So. 2d 361 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

In State v. Barrett, 508 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 511 So.2d 299 (Fla. 1987), this court, applying section 316.1932(1)(a)1., held that "the legislature has specifically declared that breath tests must be incident to a lawful arrest, and has made pre-arrest breath tests inadmissible."

Summary of this case from State, Dept. of Hwy. Saf. v. Whitley
Case details for

State v. Barrett

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT, v. RAYMOND BARRETT, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Mar 30, 1987

Citations

508 So. 2d 361 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

Citing Cases

State v. Rivas-Marmol

However, Officer Mendez testified at the suppression hearing that he "detained" Rivas-Marmol prior to the…

State v. Serrago

In State v. Hilton, 498 So.2d 698, 700 n. 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), the court observed: "We note that, unlike…